Damage Model opinions(stock, Hollywood, NYGM any others?

[gouldjg]

Hi all

I would like to get the peoples thoughts on what is good/bad etc about the damage models you have used.

What do you want to see and not want to see?

If there is one thing you would like improved what would it be?

Are you special effect fans?

Lets try and keep this constructive and friendly by not letting it fall into peoples opinions of what realism is? :up: i.e. no rivet counter comments or quake on sea snide remarks :zzz:

Thanks all

[The Noob]

Good Idea! :up:

Something Like This Was Already in the German Ubi Forums, but then there Was a Realism Discussion, my First Tought "The Sh!t Hit The Ventilator!" :-j .

Then There Was Flaming, then it Was Closed. What a Shame. Don't Let this Happen Here!

And i am a Great Special Effects Fan!

I LOVE the Crew Getting Thrown of Planes and so on!

It Would Be Cool For Merchants too................. :hmm:

[Heibges]

I really like the Hollywood Uboat Damage Model, as well as the Hollywood Crew Fatigue model.

I like the NYGM Merchant Damage Model. But as a personal rule I fired 2 or 3 torps as most targets, so I haven't noticed much of a difference, except some ships do take a very long time to sink.

But if you are currently sinking most ships with 1 torpedo, you will definitely find in it much more challenging. And it will definitely bring your tonnage towards a more historical level.

[gouldjg]

Thanks guys

Thats the sort of discussions we should be having. :up:

I know the Hollywood’s had flaws in many areas but would like to hear what the actual players think about the flaws and when they seemed most obvious. An example is that some think flooding occurs too easy; the sub is too strong etc etc.

I have spent some time on NYGM and to be honest, I think the concept has looked at problems and provided some great solutions. I especially like the deck gun water line method :rock:

At first I did not understand the high HP etc but now that I have read a little on it, I can understand how this can be a great mod when updated to v2.

It is too early for me to detail any specific faults and problems with the mod and I was just wondering what other players thought about it.

As far as vanilla is concerned, well considering the mixed market it had to appeal to, I think they had to rush in the end. They did however leave a wonderful potential to the game that has been exploited by great modders i.e. timetraveller, jscones, GW team, NYGM, IUB, RUB, The ship modelers and tool providers etc etc.

After going awol for a while I have come back to all these new and exciting tools and mods. Wow, who ever thought we would get thermal layers in the game.

Really, I want people to point out the good and the bad without getting into flame wars.

That way, I can get to work on solving some of the sour points of the game that bug people.


I want the SH4 dev team to look at what has been achieved from the community and then set a benchmark for SH4. There may be differing views on realism but they might just get a decent set of options on the first release that suits both styles of play.

[VonHelsching]

Well, although I did some minor work for it, I havn't yet tested the Holywood, but soon will. :roll: Been busy with some other mods.

I'm a more gamey type of guy, but in general fire a salvo of two in large ships. NYGM Damage (in GW) was a little frustrating for me in several cases due to the long sinking times and some ships requiring more than two torpedos. Also, the DG not making any difference above the waterline (since I'm also a DG nut) was a severe hit. Another thing was that it required to learn new techniques for sinking ships, thus making the player to change habits and not vice - versa. I hope these will be taken care of in the next version of the NYGM Damage; As I understand it is WIP.

The Holywood Damage looks promising, and probably a lot more forgiving by the players, since it is completely random, thus providing a significant level of uncertainty.

[Heibges]

The flooding is probably my favorite part.

I do not think the sub is too strong compared to the accuracy of aircraft. It's still not strong enough to save you from that.

[Heibges]

Kretschmer fired from 400m in the middle of convoys. He also must have had extremely good luck with his combat pistols, and depth keeping.

There are quite a number of factors that can contribute to a torpedo hitting and detonating against its target, yet not doing its full damage potential. There are stories of merchant ships taking a ridiculous amount of successful torpedoes to sink.

Some of those battleships took 20 torpedoes plus aerial bombs before they sunk. It took 9 torpedoes to sink the Yamato in Silent Hunter.

I believe the average for the war is over 2 successful torpedoes per sinking. This is not even counting torpedoes that missed the target altogether, or were premature.

As Dönitz writes in his memoirs:

On April 20, U-47 (Prien) came upon a convoy south-west of Westford, steaming north. Although in favourable position to do so he refrained from attacking because he felt he had lost all confidence in his torpedoes. On the previous day when he had attacked the Warspite he had been subjected to "very severe attack with depthcharges", thanks to the failure of one of his torpedoes which had exploded at the end of its run. Upon his return to port he told me he "could hardly be expected to fight with a dummy rifle".

[JCWolf]

Add every litlle effect FX you whant, cause we know you're the man for that.... :up:

We trust your Creativity :up: