Compensatory Realism.

[Stiebler]

There has been a lot of discussion in the Mods Forum recently about applying realism to various moddable parameters. It seems to me that more attention should be paid to compensating for un-realism in parts of SH3 that cannot readily be modded.

For example, there is a lengthy 'sticky' discussion about U-boat gun reload rates. However, the reload rate should certainly be faster than that of the AI-controlled merchant-ship crews. Whilst no U-boat should choose to engage in a shoot-out with any ship, the chance may always occur that you are forced to surface (damage? lack of air/current?) next to an armed ship. You must be able to return fire at an appropriate rate. And if the enemy ship is firing unrealistically fast, then so must the U-boat. That should be the criterion (compensatory realism) not actual realism.

Again, there is currently a lengthy discussion about the unrealistic 'super-accuracy' of the destroyers when dropping depthcharges. The solution is to give the depthcharges unrealistically smaller blast ranges, not to fiddle about with sensors. Again, this provides compensatory realism.

Again, the aircraft attacking U-boats are even more deadly after Jace11's Airpower 1.4c modification (installed in RUb) than in the stock model. Yet RUb has greatly reduced the U-boat flak guns to a 'realistic-effective' range of 300 metres. The correct solutions are surely a) to reduce the air-borne bomb/depthcharge blast radius; b) to allow the original unrealistically-long fire range of the flak. So what if it is unrealistically accurate? So are the bombs! Therefore you must defend yourself somehow. (In any case, the cannon shells created a long-range curtain of tracer and exploding shells through which any aircraft had to approach - according to pilots, this was very un-nerving, especially after mid-1943.)

Failure to attend to these compensations has led to some strange anomalies in SH3 and RUb. For example, it is impossible to patrol off the east coast of Florida in August 1942. The U-boat must surface occasionally, to recharge batteries and revitalise air. During the lengthy recharging process, the U-boat is *always* attacked (in RUb) by one or more aircraft during day or night; with visual warning always far too late from the negligent U-boat watch, with deadly accuracy and with negligible response from its own flak. If the U-boat barely survives the first attack, it is sunk the next time it resurfaces by further aircraft before it can clear the danger area. [The aircraft are equipped with radar in August 1942; the U-boat correctly as yet lacks any radar detector.]

These over-numerous and over-precise attacks (I tested ten saved patrols with RUb 1.45, all suffering the same fate in quick succession) are the result of an over emphasis on some areas of realism, while neglecting compensatory realism. Such results begin by being frustrating, and end by being boring. Examination of files shows that the bomb radius is greater in RUb than in SH3. Not the mod you want when facing over-precise bombers.

Stiebler.

[HundertzehnGustav]

Hard call.

it is like an attempt to create the colour violet (=realism)
big tank to put red and blue in.
add red. too reddish colour, (=ez gameplay)
then you think that you need more blue

result? more blue-ish violet, not what you really want either.

more red, more blue....

untill the tank is filled up, and you are sick of it.

REAL?
REAL is when i can accept it as "close" to the past, yet fun to use.

REAL?
Real is not on a 21 inch screen....

As real as we can make it?
That is the everlasting question where you wont find a perfect consensus.
1000 people, 1001 different poinions (there shurely a shizophreniac amongst us...)

the SOLUTION?
Mod. Mod it to your liking, untill you feel it is Real to you.

Thats why we CAN mod it,...


Chill... :D :rotfl: :rotfl:

[HundertzehnGustav]

But, please do not misunderstand... i take all of your points, agree with some of them, cant comment on others....(maybe i lack game experience)

but i must also, at this stage ask if it is REAL that an officer dies because i hit an anti submarine net at 7 kts? I mean come on... a anti sub net can scratch da paint off the Subs nose... "possibly" do some small damage to the torp tubes "doors".0.. but kill a person in the boat?

And, with all respect, there lies the problem... once one attempts to set a standard for "realism in Sh III" you will very soon find your limits.

Ah, what do we do then????
What do YOU do then, Striebler?

Go nuts? freak out? have a raise inn blood pressure? be dissapointed at the devs? rant about no Sh IV(afaik)

ah, my friend... do as you wish... REAL, as in Sh III is your own interpretation of the facts you know.

okay, nuff intelligent talk, lemme off that dang soapbox now, if you please

/beer/ fer ya...

[CCIP]

I personally find it easy to dodge bombers; anything but over-precise. Mind you, I ran very specific tests against them and found that I can dodge them 9 times out of 10 even on the surface.

Are you manuevering against them?

[caspofungin]

wrt to the "precise escorts" -- it's not so much the pinpoint drops that gets me, its just i want a more "realistic" feel to their sensors. i'm all up for a challenge, and personally i'd feel i had a better gameplay experience if i was facing similar detection conditions to what i've read about or seen in various media.

i agree w/ you in that there are limits to the search for realism -- who wants to play the last 18 months of the war constantly at snorkel depth?

but i'd like to be harried by air patrols. i'd like to make evading escorts a true test of skill rather than the waiting game it is now. for me, challenge=gameplay, but i want my challenge "real." everyones definition of real is going to be different.

[Redwine]

Again, there is currently a lengthy discussion about the unrealistic 'super-accuracy' of the destroyers when dropping depthcharges. The solution is to give the depthcharges unrealistically smaller blast ranges, not to fiddle about with sensors. Again, this provides compensatory realism.

Hi Stiebler :up:

Disregarding the rest of your exposition...... i think so you are completely wrong about this :

Most people are using unrealistic larger bast radius than real.

The most extensively used depth charge was the 420lbs one, with 130/136 kg of TNT, and it was a builder "declared" lethal radius of 4.2m, in another places mentioned 4.5m.

420lbs depth charges was filled in later war times with AMATOL and MINOL wich rise up it "declared " hull perforation radius up to 6.5m and 7.5 or 7.9 meters according source, but so later in the war.

Those "declared" values was on determined hull thickness, i dont remember well now but was on 18mm and 21mm hull, and some subs had more thick hulls.

And those values was on a test tank, wich had not a ballast tanks around and double hulls.

In the game those values seems to works on the external surface of the 3D body or even into the 3D object box, working in favour of the DC.

Most peoples and mods are using 15 and 20m blast radius, when it is exgerated radius. :D


Disregarding these historical facts, (they had not any utility in a game) i always comment, the important is not to have historical settings, a game doesnt works as in real life, the important is to reach an historical behavior and survival probabilities, disregarding what settings, historical or not, you need to adjust to obtain it.

:up:

Best regards, Red.

[Rubini]

Disregarding these historical facts, (they had not any utility in a game) i always comment, the important is not to have historical settings, a game doesnt works as in real life, the important is to reach an historical behavior and survival probabilities, disregarding what settings, historical or not, you need to adjust to obtain it.
Like I already said on another post: I agree 100% with Redwine! :yep:

Rubini.

[HEMISENT]

My vote has to go with Redwine's thoughts and the historical behavior and sensible survival probabilities. This is a submarine simulator and simulators are supposed to mimic the feel of what it was like as close as possible. Just because an AI merchant deck gun fires 30 rounds per minute does not mean we increase the gun reload times on the players boat. What we do is slow the rate of fire down on the merchant then attempt to set the shell damage to levels that approximate realism. There's no way to exactly reproduce realism but we can do our best to come up with realistic behavior.

[caspofungin]

absolutely! if irl it was nearly impossible for a u-boat to escape from a veteran, well-equipped escort, it should be similar in game. if, on the other hand, an early war escort and crew could only hope to stumble across the u-boat, then that poor performance should also be reflected in game. the operative word -- reflected.

[Stiebler]

In view of some of the responses to the original post, perhaps a little clarification:

The purpose of a simulation is to simulate (reality). This is achieved by creating realistic game play. It is *not* necessarily achieved by making any one component of game play more realistic.

To continue with the air attack example cited earlier, the hard-coded 'super-accuracy' of bomber attacks is not improved by making bomb blasts larger, no matter how much more realistic the new blast areas may be. The blast ranges should be made smaller, to compensate for the over-accuracy.

One correspondent asked what I would do about realism. I would fix it. And, specifically, I have reduced depth-charge and bomb blast effects in my copy of RUb 1.45. Another correspondent suggested that the correct approach to fixing the gun reload speed problem of the U-boat was to make Allied ships reload more slowly too. Just so, but their rate of firing is (I believe) hard-coded, so that isn't an option.

What is needed is a general consensus that this idea of compensatory realism is the best way forward, and what the best compromise values should be. Of course, the discussion should not be confined just to blast radii.

This matter has become suddenly urgent, since the next release of RUb is scheduled to be the last.

Stiebler.

[ENtek-IO]

For those who disagree with Stiebler and think this is a matter of oppinion, i say read again what he wrote.
Those things can be approched with logic and if the outcome of a supposed realism fix is a highly unrealistic behaviour in game, it is as a matter of fact not realistc period.
His logic was crystal clear, i fail to see how can anyone who is claiming to have realism in mind denie the objectivity of this approach .
Further,especialy Rubini and Redwine read again what he wrote.
I have to stress,THose questions are not a matter of oppinion.
If you claim realism , make logical faults and then counter fix the new inroduced behaviour,the logic base you used is faulty.
I agree with Stiebler 100%.

[ENtek-IO]

Double post edit.

[Redwine]

The main problem is SH3 is not a simulator, it is only a Mario Bros. game.

Most people are hypnotized by the impresive 3D sub interior view, and those stupid monkey aknowledge your orders, and the specular sea surface.

Only one example (there are many) .......you have only one kind of depth charge modellated, all barrel depth charge of the game are the same, for DDs, for planes, all with same explosive charge and fall speed and blast radius.

It is not a sim charecteristic, it is a game characteristic, in SH2 you have more than a dozen and half diferent depth charges modellated.

I think so the objective must to be to obtain a beliable AI behavior....... we can not expect too much from this game.

[Dantenoc]

I agree with the original post.

Most of all about the pitiful flak radius that Rub imposes on the player. I agree that the original game has the unfortunate flaw of making it to easy to shoot planes down, but the "solution" presented in RuB leaves A LOT to be desired. I try to play realisticaly, in the sense that if I see a plane I try to crash dive and escape and not shoot it down, but sometimes you just can't do that or you'll get caught in mid-dive. After installing the latest version of RuB I've found that the game isn't realy playable after 1943. By the time the flak gunners start firing the bombs are allready falling... the result? I can still shoot them down, but too late to make any difference... that's not realistic, is it?

But let's not argue about realism, let's concentrate on the essential here... Nobody cares if a game is realistic or not if nobody plays it anymore. Playability takes precedence.

[Der Teddy Bar]

Dantenoc,
The NYGM Aircraft Damage Mod addresses all the AA issues.

[Dantenoc]

Great :up: ... I'll give it a try

[Sailor Steve]

The sources I've read give most depth charges an effective kill radius of 25 feet. What's that, 5-6 meters?

Flak guns I don't have an answer for, but I find new arguments about the deck gun to be a little late-SHIII Commander lets you set them for any reload rate you like.