RUb 1.44 Shell Explosive charge /armour piercing power

[jason210]

Can anyone tell me how to set the Shell Explosive charge /armour piercing power back to SHIII default, or at least a little higher than it is now. I should be able to cripple an Elco boat with one or two good shots. In my last mission I fired 5 direct hits at one, and it still came at me, then a destroyer came and I ended up with 50% hull integrity.

[Beery]

In real life an Elco or a destroyer could cripple and/or kill a U-boat quite effectively. Part of the idea behind RUb is to reward realistic tactics and punish unrealistic ones. In real life your chances of hitting an Elco with the deck gun would be incredibly small. The Elco is extremely manoeuvrable and has a very effective 50 caliber (or similar) gun and torpedoes - both very effective weapons against a U-boat. I've not done any serious studies on U-boats versus torpedo boats, but my gut feeling is that if such an encounter happened in real life I think the U-boat would be lucky to get away with 50% hull integrity. U-boats simply aren't built to take on armed surface vessels in a slug-fest, and U-boat commanders went to great lengths to avoid such encounters - the risk to the U-boat was just too great.

Having said that, the info regarding what files have been altered for every RUb feature is in the Readme file. In this case the file is data\Library\Shells.zon. Just replace it with the stock game version of the file and you'll be all set.

[jason210]

Thanks.

I don't agree with the reduced shell explosive power. (or reduced reload times for that matter). The only realistic alteration to do to the gun is reduce it's accuracy.

Reload times depended on a variety of factors, including how well trained the crew were. To say that reload times should be 1 minute, or 30 seconds or whatever is artificial. Evidence points to quite fast reload times for these guns, generally.

As to shell explosive power - here is another example - I fired an explosive shell at a lifeboat (using RUb) on a cargo ship. The lifeboat should have been knocked off it's davits but it wasn't.

Finally, at point blank range, where accuracy is not an issue, such a gun should be able to do at lot of damage to ship, such as an unarmed merchant vessel. The only thing that's wrong with the default deck gun is its accuracy, and I really wish modders would leave the other variables alone and tinker with this one more. More misses and everything is righty-ho. It seems that what's happening instead is that modders are trying to penalise our use of this weapon, by reducing the explosive / armour peircing power, or ammo, or reload, to try and balance things out this way. This seems to me to be the wrong approach, because it has the unwanted aforementioned side effects, and in a way these are more unrealistic than having a super-accurate gun. The only thing wrong with the default gun is the brain of the person who's firing it! I've always used the gun judiciously...

In addtion to making the gun less accurate, another thing that could help restrict the effectiveness of it is to make the sub more vulnerable to attacks from guns on other ships. One hit from a destroyer should disable, if not sink a sub. If things were like this, simmers would be less likely to take on anything with a gun! Also, it should be easier to shoot the deck gun crew with machine guns. I've never seen the deck gun crew taken out with a machine gun from another boat.

Here's another tip. Manning the gun should take time, and not happen instantly. There were preparations to be made. Also, guns were not 100% reliable. May be also the gun could jam, or develop a fault, that needed to be fixed. This is easy to implement - just damage the gun randomly.

[rulle34]

I just want to raise a warning finger about just replace the shells.zon file because it's shared with another mod in Rub. Here is from the read me in 1.44:
"050720: Added a new ASW mod. Mod by CCIP based on work done previously by gouldjg, Jungman, Jace11 and TimeTraveller. (AI_Sensors.dat, DC_X_H.sim, DC_X_H.zon, Depth_charges.sim, Depth_charges.zon, Shells.zon). This includes Jungman's latest sonar fix."

[Beery]

Oops. Hehe, I guess I should read my own readme more carefully.

[jason210]

Here's an interesting link:

http://www.dav.org/magazine/magazine_archives/2003-2/PT_Boats_-_The_S2266_print.html

[rulle34]

Oops. Hehe, I guess I should read my own readme more carefully.

With all these mods in Rub this can easily happen. :P Just wanted to help

[jason210]

Now that I've heard what rulle said, I'm not going to change ther .zon file. I tried opening this in various applications - it contains quite a few variables, but it's not all text unfortunately. Unless some of it was in Rumanian. To swap it for the original might have unpredicatable side effects on the other mods, as rulle34 implies.

I was reading in Type VII U-boats (Stern) just now that the deck guns were actually removed from type VII U-boats in 1942.

But before that they were used to finish off ships. If I'd torpedod a C2 and used two torpedos, but the ship refuses to go down, I should be able to finsih it off with just a few shots on the water line, but I tried this too, and it took about twenty shots to do it.

[iambecomelife]

Thanks.

I don't agree with the reduced shell explosive power. (or reduced reload times for that matter). The only realistic alteration to do to the gun is reduce it's accuracy.

Reload times depended on a variety of factors, including how well trained the crew were. To say that reload times should be 1 minute, or 30 seconds or whatever is artificial. Evidence points to quite fast reload times for these guns, generally.

As to shell explosive power - here is another example - I fired an explosive shell at a lifeboat (using RUb) on a cargo ship. The lifeboat should have been knocked off it's davits but it wasn't.

Finally, at point blank range, where accuracy is not an issue, such a gun should be able to do at lot of damage to ship, such as an unarmed merchant vessel. The only thing that's wrong with the default deck gun is its accuracy, and I really wish modders would leave the other variables alone and tinker with this one more. More misses and everything is righty-ho. It seems that what's happening instead is that modders are trying to penalise our use of this weapon, by reducing the explosive / armour peircing power, or ammo, or reload, to try and balance things out this way. This seems to me to be the wrong approach, because it has the unwanted aforementioned side effects, and in a way these are more unrealistic than having a super-accurate gun. The only thing wrong with the default gun is the brain of the person who's firing it! I've always used the gun judiciously...

In addtion to making the gun less accurate, another thing that could help restrict the effectiveness of it is to make the sub more vulnerable to attacks from guns on other ships. One hit from a destroyer should disable, if not sink a sub. If things were like this, simmers would be less likely to take on anything with a gun! Also, it should be easier to shoot the deck gun crew with machine guns. I've never seen the deck gun crew taken out with a machine gun from another boat.

Here's another tip. Manning the gun should take time, and not happen instantly. There were preparations to be made. Also, guns were not 100% reliable. May be also the gun could jam, or develop a fault, that needed to be fixed. This is easy to implement - just damage the gun randomly.

Those are some good ideas. I remember first playing SH3 and being amazed that I could take several hits from a destroyer without sinking. Also, injuries to crew from small arms are indeed rare. RUB seemed to solve this problem to a degree; on one occasion I had about five or six men manning the guns become casualties in a row.

[Beery]

...But before that they were used to finish off ships. If I'd torpedod a C2 and used two torpedos, but the ship refuses to go down, I should be able to finsih it off with just a few shots on the water line, but I tried this too, and it took about twenty shots to do it.

...Some incidents I've found:

Topp in U-552 fired 126 rounds at a 10,000ton freighter and claimed a sinking but the ship was not destroyed.

Vogel in U-588 hit a 4,800 ton tanker with 2 torps and then spent 4 hours firing 200 rounds into it before claiming it sinking in flames - this ship also survived...

Schacht in U-507 tried to sink a 6,800ton ship by gunfire after the crew had abandoned it but finally gave up and had to use a torpedo.

Wurdemann in U-506 used his gun on 7,000ton tanker and claimed it sunk in flames but the ship survived.

Rasch in U-106 hit a 5,000ton ship with 2 torps and then finished it off with his gun but it took 193 rounds.

Mohlmann in U-571 hit a 9,800ton tanker with 2 torps and finished it off with 20 rounds (this is less than in the previous example but SH3 will often let you sink a ship with around 20 rounds without having to use 2 torps first).

Wiebe in U-516 sank a small 1,200ton coaster by gunfire - number of rounds is not given but it took him 20 minutes.

The examples where skippers wrongly assumed the ship was destroyed suggest that vessels were capable of sustaining a lot of "cosmetic" damage without being in danger of sinking. The difference with torps is of course that all the damage is potentially fatal ie below the waterline.

In short, there are no guarantees regarding how much ammo is needed to sink a ship.

[Beery]

...Reload times depended on a variety of factors, including how well trained the crew were. To say that reload times should be 1 minute, or 30 seconds or whatever is artificial. Evidence points to quite fast reload times for these guns, generally.

Actually, evidence indicates that reloads were fast (around 4 rounds per minute) for the first 20 rounds and very slow (over a minute per round) for the remaining 180 rounds. The RUb team decided to take an average, since the game doesn't have the option of two reload speeds.

As to shell explosive power - here is another example - I fired an explosive shell at a lifeboat (using RUb) on a cargo ship. The lifeboat should have been knocked off it's davits but it wasn't.

What a shell does to a lifeboat is merely eye candy. It doesn't relate to structural or critical damage. having it be accurate would be nice, but it is merely 'chrome'.

Finally, at point blank range, where accuracy is not an issue, such a gun should be able to do at lot of damage to ship, such as an unarmed merchant vessel.

A hit, whether at medium, close, or point blank range, should do about the same damage. There is no appreciable loss in effectiveness as the range increases - only at long ranges does a reduction in speed decrease the effectiveness of the shell.

The only thing that's wrong with the default deck gun is its accuracy...

Not so. The stock SH3 deck gun shell is certainly too powerful. This deck gun shell nerf is not something that just popped into our heads and which we implemented without any thought. It was discussed, agreed upon, tested and tweaked. We spent many hours on it. It was not a caprice. It is based on research, discussion and consensus.

...and I really wish modders would leave the other variables alone and tinker with this one more. More misses and everything is righty-ho.

Firstly, if we could mod the accuracy, we would. But we can't. The variables do not seem to be accessible without the Software Development Kit, and there is no evidence that the SDK is going to be made available anytime soon.

Secondly, and more importantly, you seem to be trying to tell me what I should do with my spare time. What gives you that right? The mod is freely available to you. You are free to use it or not. I don't tell you how to play the game, I don't force you to use the mod, and I don't think any modmaker (or anyone else for that matter) needs a lecture on how he should spend his time. I mod what I want to mod. I have never modded anything based on what anyone else told me I should mod, and I never will. None of the mod team are told what to work on - they work on what they want to work on, and the best stuff (based generally on a loose consensus on the part of the mod team) gets into the mod. If you don't like the changes that are in RUb, DON'T USE THE MOD! Advice and info are appreciated, even criticism is encouraged, but when you tell me what I should be working on, that goes over the line. I am not your employee, I am not producing a product for you or anyone else. I do this mod-making thing primarily for my own enjoyment, and the fact that I'm happy to offer the product of my labour to the community does not make me beholden to anyone who uses the mod. You like it - fine; you don't like it - also fine, but you don't get to tell me what I should be working on - that is 100% my decision. If you think something is being ignored, and if you think time would be better spent if it was devoted to that thing, YOU should work on it. No one is preventing anyone from working on anything. It's not like any of us are keeping the necessary information from anyone - certainly the SH3 Mod Team are very open to prospective mod-makers - if you want to mod the game you will get help from us. It's not like this game is that hard to mod anyway. Most of the stuff that can be modded is easy to mod. The SH3 Mod Team's mods are so good because we have freedom to spend our time on what we want to do. If we start putting our own desires aside and catering to what other people think we should be doing, we will start to produce poor quality stuff because our hearts won't be in the work.

It seems that what's happening instead is that modders are trying to penalise our use of this weapon, by reducing the explosive / armour peircing power, or ammo, or reload, to try and balance things out this way. This seems to me to be the wrong approach, because it has the unwanted aforementioned side effects, and in a way these are more unrealistic than having a super-accurate gun.

That's your opinion. But to be perfectly frank it doesn't mean too much unless you're one of the guys who make the mod. When I nerf a deck gun and publish a mod with that nerf included, that has no penalising effect on you at all, because you have the option to use the mod or not to use it. If you decide to take the plunge and use the mod, then you must be willing to accept (at least until you make a decision about whether you like the mod or not) whatever penalties and benefits I and my mod-making colleagues dictate. That is what mods are all about. No one is 'punishing' you by releasing a mod. Most people accept a mod for what it is - a free gift. Some people seem to think that if they don't like the free gift, that it's a punishment. I just don't get that. If you don't like a mod I've helped to make, delete it and move on. Don't tell me I'm penalising you. You made the decision to put your game in my hands. I never forced you to do so.

How would you feel if you held a party, with an open invitation to anyone to partake of free food and drink, and at the end of the party I got a bullhorn out and told everyone at the party how I thought that the party was a bust, that the food was bland and unfilling, that the drinks menu was lacking, and that I felt that you should have bought Budweiser rather than Coors, and served beef rather than chicken? I don't think you'd be too pleased. What if, on top of that, I told everyone that I had been penalized by being prevented from eating beef at the party? It seems to me that that is the equivalent of what you're doing here.

The only thing wrong with the default gun is the brain of the person who's firing it! I've always used the gun judiciously...

That doesn't matter. The mod is not made purely with the intention of catering to the play-style of those who are conservative with the deck gun. The mod was made based on what the mod team wanted to make. We don't try to produce a mod that satisfies everyone - if we did there would be no mod. We publish the mod with the hope that others will enjoy it, but we do NOT intend that the mod should please everyone who downloads it. In fact, the RUb mod is SPECIFICALLY intended NOT to be enjoyed by the majority of players. It is a hardcore mod intended for a hardcore player who enjoys a certain view of realism and a challenge in terms of gameplay. If your view of realism doesn't coincide with ours, that is not our fault, nor is it something we should address. Popularity is not something the SH3 Mod Team has ever been concerned about.

In addtion to making the gun less accurate, another thing that could help restrict the effectiveness of it is to make the sub more vulnerable to attacks from guns on other ships. One hit from a destroyer should disable, if not sink a sub. If things were like this, simmers would be less likely to take on anything with a gun!

RUb does this.

Also, it should be easier to shoot the deck gun crew with machine guns...

RUb does this.

Here's another tip. Manning the gun should take time, and not happen instantly. There were preparations to be made. Also, guns were not 100% reliable. May be also the gun could jam, or develop a fault, that needed to be fixed. This is easy to implement - just damage the gun randomly.

These are good tips, but trust me, they have all been attempted, and none of them could be achieved. These are not easy things to implement - in fact they may be impossible without the SDK. If they were easy they would have been done by now.

[Beery]

I said it before and I'll say it again:

What I'm going to say here isn't in response to any one post, and it's not said in a spirit of antagonism (although I'm going to be very blunt). But I'm getting the impression (from many posts in many threads) that people think RUb is supposed to be something it isn't, so let me explain some things regarding the RUb philosophy regarding playability and popularity issues...

Firstly, I'm all for players having options, but (and I'm not going to sugarcoat this or bull$hit folks about it, because I think people need to know the whole truth, warts and all) from my perspective RUb must remain 100% committed to making the game more realistic (realism as defined by the SH3 Mod Team alone). Playability takes a close second place and popularity takes a distant third place. It's always been my personal goal to help RUb take a path that will make it more exclusive as time goes by, until it reaches a point where it is as realistic as possible and only just playable enough so that me and a few other hardcore realism junkies will enjoy it. There are plenty of other mods that modify RUb, or that follow their own philosophies in terms of balancing realism and playability, and there can always be more such mods.

A lot of players are going to have difficulty accepting a definition of realism that is cooked up by the nefarious cabal of folks who are behind the RUb mod, but the cold hard fact is that we build it, so we decide what it looks and plays like. The SH3 Mod Team didn't start out as a kind of mod-making version of the Freemasons - everyone was invited to join, even if they had no mod-making experience. Those who joined got to define the shape of the mod, while those who chose not to join didn't get a say. That may not be democratic or fair, but it got the job done the way we wanted it done. If people think that our choices don't meet their needs, or if they think our definition of realism is a load of bull, I urge them to either look for alternatives to RUb or get modding themselves. There is always room for anyone's definition of realism, and for those who don't want to build a major mod from scratch, RUb is always open to modification so that anyone can add to it or subtract from it (just as long as those who did the work get credit for it, and just so long as no one tries to make a profit off the labour of others). :yep:

[jason210]

Aren't you over-reacting a bit? I didn't even mention your name in this thread. All I said was that I wish modders would stop changing "that" and change "this" instead. It was a general statement, about SHIII, not about you. I was thinking of several at the time I said it.

You must appreciate that your mod is like a standard update for the game. There will be no-more patches. What else is there? Your mod is like a major patch. It has some very good things in it, and I think it's a great improvement in many ways, but you seem to be saying that it's beyond criticism. Take it as it is or leave it seems to be your attitude. One of the reasons forums are here are so that people can express opinions, give feedback and criticism. I'm just used to speaking my mind about things, that's all.

Making a mod, and making it publically available means the mod is open to public criticism. I can also have an opinion also about what modders are doing, if they are doing public work. I'm disappointed that you reacted to my post the way you did.

I mod what I want to mod. I have never modded anything based on what anyone else told me I should mod, and I never will...None of the mod team are told what to work on - they work on what they want to work on...

Most mods are small, and one can choose them or not, but RUb is big and important - it includes many mods. You could say that RUb is kind of like the future of SHIII now. RUb is also a community. Users of RUb all share in the same experience, and this important, for me at least. Of course I could pick and choose my own mods, but then I'd be on my own, and not have much to share or discuss. Since RUb has this status and role, I thought it was ok to criticise it.

Advice and info are appreciated, even criticism is encouraged, but when you tell me what I should be working on, that goes over the line. I am not your employee......you don't get to tell me what I should be working on - that is 100% my decision...

It's you who chose to interpet it that way.

[Beery]

Aren't you over-reacting a bit? I didn't even mention your name in this thread. All I said was that I wish modders would stop changing "that" and change "this" instead. It was a general statement, about SHIII, not about you. I was thinking of several at the time I said it.

I'm a modder. The thread is called "RUb 1.44 Shell Explosive charge /armour piercing power". I'm the guy who assembles the RUb mod. Forgive me for taking it a bit personally.

You said "I really wish modders would leave the other variables alone and tinker with this one more." To me, that is telling me what you want me to work on. I don't respond well to that. It's like going into a public restroom and telling the attendant that toilet attendants should pay more attention to cleaning sinks. I don't see how the attendant could possibly take that in good humour.

You must appreciate that your mod is like a standard update for the game. There will be no-more patches. What else is there? Your mod is like a major patch. It has some very good things in it, and I think it's a great improvement in many ways, but you seem to be saying that it's beyond criticism. Take it as it is or leave it seems to be your attitude. One of the reasons forums are here are so that people can express opinions, give feedback and criticism. I'm just used to speaking my mind about things, that's all.

I agree that what I'm saying is "Take it as it is or leave it". That is indeed my attitude, and always has been. RUb is like my baby - I don't take kindly to folks who suggest that I should be raising my baby differently. Nor do I like it when my baby's very existence is said to be a penalization or punishment.

On your point that you're speaking your mind, what you're doing in this instance is more than speaking your mind. There are unspoken rules of conduct and good taste, and just as you should keep quiet when you're dissatisfied about the fare at a party, so you should accept a mod for what it offers, rather than criticizing it for not catering to your needs. If you'd paid money for it, you would have every right to tell me what I should spend my time on, but you didn't pay money for it. Like I said, I'm not against criticism, but I am against unfair criticism, and that's what I'm seeing in your earlier posts.

Making a mod, and making it publically available means the mod is open to public criticism. I can also have an opinion also about what modders are doing, if they are doing public work. I'm disappointed that you reacted to my post the way you did.I mod what I want to mod. I have never modded anything based on what anyone else told me I should mod, and I never will...None of the mod team are told what to work on - they work on what they want to work on...

Most mods are small, and one can choose them or not, but RUb is big and important - it includes many mods. You could say that RUb is kind of like the future of SHIII now. RUb is also a community. Users of RUb all share in the same experience, and this important, for me at least. Of course you I could pick and choose my own mods, but then I'd be on my own, and not much to share or discuss. Since RUb has this status and role, I thought it was ok to criticise it.

RUb is also optional. It's not as if RUb-use is mandated by some higher power. When we made the mod, and all through its development, we have ALWAYS stated clearly that the mod wasn't intended to be liked by everyone. We didn't plan for RUb to be 'the' mod that carried on the work of the developers. The fact that it is regarded as such is nice, but it should not be a 'problem' that the modmakers have a responsibility to address. You seem to think that the modmakers have a responsibility, purely because of RUb's success, to change the focus of RUb and accept indentured servitude to the community. I'm sorry, but that is not going to happen. Again, if you don't like what RUb does, other options are available for you. There is the IUb mod; there's the Un-Real U-boat mod, or you can do what CCIP does and create your own mod based on your own specifications.

Advice and info are appreciated, even criticism is encouraged, but when you tell me what I should be working on, that goes over the line. I am not your employee......you don't get to tell me what I should be working on - that is 100% my decision...

It's you who chose to interpet it that way.

I interpreted it that way because that's the impression that I got from it.

[jason210]

You're right. But I edited those bits out of my post right after I posted 'em cause when I read through it, it sounded like I was over-reacting - which I was. I was upset, but by the time I'd written it I'd calmed down. Didn't realise you was online, writing a reply already. You didn't show up online anyway.

Now it looks like I edited those bits out after you posted, which was not the case.

May be can do some deleting. Since you're a moderator may be you could fix it?

Sorry if my post sounded ungrateful or unfair. It's not the case. But it wasn't arrogant or presumptious. I was just a reaction to playing RUb. I think you suffer from forum fighting a bit.

[Beery]

I've edited my post so that yours doesn't look edited after the fact. We're both probably guilty of getting upset and posting before we had fully calmed down. I apologise for my part.

[jason210]

I'm sorry too.

[Beery]

Group Hug!!! :D

[Hartmann]

Remember that there are some little mods that allow change deck gun time reload and other things for the people that don´t like some Rub values.

Rub is a excelent star point for the people that want mod his game.

I have a moded version of RUB :oops: with other mods and works well.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

To everybody...

We've all had our disagreements here... in this forum. The title of this forum is the "SH3" mods workshop and is the home for SH3 modders.

Often this means views will clash. I've even seen moderators bickering. Overall though, there is a bit of class and good faith found here that isn't always present elsewhere.

I think most who come here (and spend any amount of real time studying) really intend to make some element or many elements of their game more realistic. This is tough to do in some cases due to a hundred reasons.

There are some who may feel my seven years experience with field artillery is useless because it isn't "naval" artillery experience. I say that it gives me a unique insight into general artillery related issues that most people here just don't have.

We all have our own views on realism brought on by experience and or research. Reality will always be based on your perception of things... and clashing viewpoints DOES NOT mean (usually) that the person you disagree with is an idiot.

All that being said... I am interested in knowing what kind of ammo was carried a majority of time for the deck guns on U-boats.

However, whether it was HE or AP really doesn't make that much difference when it comes to a single deck gun against medium to large shipping. The explosive power of either ammo type isn't enough to cause catastrophic damage... therefore it SHOULD take many many rounds to finish of a ship with the deck gun.

Regarding HE rounds, these are great for surface general bombardment and very small shipping (unless it is a fast vessel like a PT boat) ...but not good for sinking ships... HE is more "fragmentary" in nature and just doesn't have the penetrating power of AP rounds.

Regarding AP rounds... the most appropriate round for anti-shipping.... and I refer to naval 88 and 105 mm together as one.
AP rounds do not tear open great holes with these calibers... they punch nice neat little holes and the round generally explodes somewhere inside one of many watertight compartments... if below waterline it contributes to flooding. If above waterline AP hits can only do real damage with luck by striking something critical.

Both ammo types in a land battle do terrible damage to people and tanks respectively... however you must know...

That the most appropriate anti-shipping round would be the AP round.

Sinking a medium to large ship would appropriately be much like draining a swimming pool with a straw.

IMHO for this reason... I believe deck gun damage represented by RUb is quite a bit more realistic... by a long shot (no pun) over stock SH3.

The deck gun should not be looked at as a U-Boat's primary weapon of attack. There just wasn't enough ammo on board to use it this way. I can see attacking a small merchant with it... but even then you wouldn't have enough ammo remaining to be very effective elsewhere.

I think RUB has it pretty much right....

Regarding rate of fire, Jason 210 you need to read the WHOLE thread titled "The deck gun discussion... since it keeps coming up" and come to your own conclusions. Check the sticky threads.