Work Underway on the next Grey Wolves Major Release.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

The engine room is ROARING with activity and the GW Development Team is truly excited about where we are going!

The Grey Wolves Development Team is charging ahead full steam towards the
next major worldwide release of The Grey Wolves.

Now that you have put your socks back on, we are going to
blow them off again.

... A sneak preview for you...

Our next major release will include:

An ENTIRELY re-designed ship damage model that will include
ALL ships incorporated into GW both merchant and military, AND re-balanced
weapon damage potential!!!

Sensors and Detection/ASW overhaul infused by new
information!!!

Real-Life Ship and U-boat behavior modifications.!!!

Lessened system impact without losing content!!!

Brand new, never before seen ships!!!

New Interface Screens!!!

...and DOZENS of subtle differences!!!

We are also considering further content suggestions and
features. This is of course an on-going and truly
never-ending process... As The Grey Wolves mod is aimed at
providing a mixture of content to appeal to many...
...and we aren't just talking about our awesome sound and
graphics.

We'd like to give you all the opportunity to post your wish
list. Please feel free to post on this thread what you may
like to see in the next Grey Wolves release, or perhaps even
what you wouldn't like to see. You may want to state what you
like about The Grey Wolves, or what you don't like about our mod package.

Of course you know that not all requests will be incorporated into the
next release, but every post placed here will be reviewed and
considered by The Grey Wolves development team.
Your feedback WILL help shape the content of the next Grey Wolves major
release...

Our next major release will continue to offer adaptable
realism... from the hard-core cutting edge... to more relaxed
styles of play.

:up: :up: :up:

[Soviet_Warlord]

cool, whats the ETA?

(Yea, I'm pretty obsessed with waiting times :p )

[CWorth]

Great news...can't wait for this.

Only one minor suggestion...a optional lite version of the .SCR layer with fewer ships in the harbors to help with framerates for those with slower CPU's/GPU's.

[Highbury]

Great news!

You talk about suggestions... will give the only one that jumps to mind.. may be better to describe it as a 'want'.

Damage Model: I know you are re-working this and have no idea what you intent to do with it, but I would like to see a large change over the NYGM model. While compartmentalized damage as they have implemented it does make torpedo usage much more in line with what I have read of Uboat warfare, waiting 10, 20, 30 hrs in the middle of the ocean watching a bobbing cork of a ship waiting for it to sink is rediculous and immersion killing.

They wanted to prevent "She's Going Down" happeneing somewhat instantly. I disagree with this philosophy. The Kaleun would have a pretty good idea right away if a ship was broken and count it as such. They would not sit on top of the conning tower taking bets "Is it gonna go?... isn't it?"

You may make a case for ships in RL taking a long time to sink. It is my opinion that a real commander would have taken his shots, seen if he had made critical damage (if you even have a chance to 'see' it) then leave marking it down as a kill. They would never just hang about... seeing if it will go down and waiting to see if thier radio is still intact! This is what I would like to see represented. Leave it up to the Kaleun if he wants to sunbathe on deck for 2 days as it sinks.

**Disclaimer: I am not bashing NYGM, I have never tried the mod. Just expressing a difference of opinion over their damage model.

[Sailor Steve]

I disagree; the records are rife with reports of ship sinkings that later turned out to be mistaken. Quite a few ships sailed home after being reported as sunk by this or that submarine.

I would be happy if all the crew reports went away...and if they didn't automatically start whispering when you were detected.

Slightly off topic, but I had to state my feelings as well.

[Highbury]

I disagree; the records are rife with reports of ship sinkings that later turned out to be mistaken. Quite a few ships sailed home after being reported as sunk by this or that submarine.

Exactly my point! I am that commander with no benefit of hindsight or after-war intel. I saw it critically damaged, I marked it as a kill. I got the hell outta there. I am describing how it would be for the Kaleun on the scene, not investigating it after the war.

[FIREWALL]

Can a mod be made to make a deris field until bolt1 is available (mid42). They called it a deception option in Silent Hunter. Something like a mix of oil,boatparts,and if enough damage,adeceased crew member. I know Goulish but realistic. Maybe giveup a torp or use the later bolt to make this. Looking forword to next G.W. installment. "G.W. RULES" it made my SH-3 into a whole new Sim. :D :yep:

[Sailor Steve]

I disagree; the records are rife with reports of ship sinkings that later turned out to be mistaken. Quite a few ships sailed home after being reported as sunk by this or that submarine.

Exactly my point! I am that commander with no benefit of hindsight or after-war intel. I saw it critically damaged, I marked it as a kill. I got the hell outta there. I am describing how it would be for the Kaleun on the scene, not investigating it after the war.
My mistake. I thought you were saying that you wanted the message so you could leave without worrying about it. I don't want the message at all so I would have to take my chances one way or the other; stick around and risk discover or run and possibly never know. This is especially true in convoys: you might never get the message-only find out when you got home.

[Highbury]

I could definitly go for no message at all.

Basically what I would like to see removed is sitting there for a day or two waiting for your kill to be confirmed. IMO as it is now, we have mod work focused on trying to make the actual damage more realistic, but it has a side effect of making the game less realistic. I am open to suggestion on how it is achieved, but waiting for them to sink has gotta go.

Yes you can argue that ships took days to sink, nobody can sucessfully argue that the Uboats would hang around to watch.

[gabeeg]

Great news...can't wait for this.

Only one minor suggestion...a optional lite version of the .SCR layer with fewer ships in the harbors to help with framerates for those with slower CPU's/GPU's.

I most whole heartedly second this one! I have a 64mb graphics card and as much as I want harbor traffic, currently it is just too choppy.

[andy_311]

More traffic in the Indian Ocean, perhaps some nice looking Japanese warships?
Sort out trying to get out of Lorient it's a pain at the momment.
E-boats attacking coastal shipping

[irish1958]

Increase the sound level of the grammaphone.
Consider Church's radio traffic, perhaps as an option.
More Traffic in South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, Western Pacific.
I'm sure I'll think of some more.
"Keep up the good work"
irish1958

[aquasal]

Personally I would like to see you merge all the NYGM 2.0 features into this and add your own, but keeping the core the same....it has the core needed and would luv all GW extras merged together.

[Salvadoreno]

New theatres.. Baltic Sea/Black Sea. Salamis as a port. Maybe even the far east? Penang? Im not saying all of them, but it would be nice.

Oh and how bout finding a way to workaround the "teleport" transfer in Sh3. EWww i hate that soooo much!!! I want to actually sail to my new port while sinking some ships, or going thru some Das Boot moments.. Transfer via the radio? wooo

[Tigrone]

Could we have better underwater visibility or an option for that? I can't see anything underwater unless I'm so close, I can touch it.

[Wulfmann]

While game play may prefer instant confirmation it would be more realistic if no such report were made at all. I would also like the option of not having what type of ship being shown in the UZO and peri.
Player can click on a smudge and know what it is. I prefer it say nothing and leave it to player to ID the ship type, same with hydrophone, just "ship". The sounds dictate what it is let player figure it out!

I had a small part in a WWI flight sim called OFF (Over Flanders’s Field.) As for kills when they occurred it was recorded as a "claim" and that was noted to be investigated.
A couple missions later you would get a report on the findings and even though you saw the plane crash sometimes into the airbase you were stationed at you did not always get a confirmed kill. Life was not fair for all types of kills in real life (and many U-Boats were reported sunk that were not).
I would like to see something like that but have to consider it impossible with the engine???!!!???
Still, it would be nice to only make claims and find out when one returns to base if he gets credit.

Not sure why GW has never made a good convoy section in the RND. To me the real battle is against the convoys and that is, IMO, the weak part of GW. Since I did a complete overhaul of the RND I can assure you it is possible to have a much better more realistic convoy war than is currently in GW.
GW might also consider changing all the Norwegian ships plying the coast of Norway after May 1940 to German during the occupation as getting shelled by a Norwegian freighter off the Bergen approach in 1944 is hardly real. Norway remains an enemy and would not have traded with occupied Norway as such. This was stock and never corrected in the GW RND. (Don’t forget to change the “side” as changing to German alone causes a problem).

Don’t misunderstand, GW is great and I am sure the next one will be as well and I would not be happy if I could not tweak it myself to suit my blend of virtual reality.

You asked!

Wulfmann

[schuhart]

I could definitly go for no message at all.

Basically what I would like to see removed is sitting there for a day or two waiting for your kill to be confirmed. IMO as it is now, we have mod work focused on trying to make the actual damage more realistic, but it has a side effect of making the game less realistic. I am open to suggestion on how it is achieved, but waiting for them to sink has gotta go.

Yes you can argue that ships took days to sink, nobody can sucessfully argue that the Uboats would hang around to watch.

Lets make one thing clear, hanging around to watch a target sink is entirely up to you and not a feature of NYGM!
If a commander had the opportunity to finish off a ship, he would do it, not wait around for it to sink.
In convoys half-sunken ships would be floating around for days even weeks, and would attract the attention of u-boats all around.
There are many stories of these ships, with both u-boats and escorts trying to finish them off and them eventually being towed to a harbor for repairs.
I have never read that a commander would mark a ship as a kill for just being damaged, unless there were other circumstances or misunderstandings involved.

[clouclou]

Integrated orders mod ???
Salut.

[Immacolata]

Great news...can't wait for this.

Only one minor suggestion...a optional lite version of the .SCR layer with fewer ships in the harbors to help with framerates for those with slower CPU's/GPU's.

Ive got a pc capable of flank speed ahead in any game... and even here its sluggish :) Perhaps an overall pruning of harbor activity world wide would help.

[Mast]

Great news! :rock: I'll be standing by and waiting!!

Mast

[irish1958]

There is a mod which add wolfpacks to the game. I would suggest that the convoy campaign be enhanced as suggested by Wulfmann, but with the addition of the wolfpack mod when it was historically implemented by BDU. Not every convoy would be attacked, of course.
I would add many more single merchants especially early in the war and along the East coast of the US and the Carribean. There is a thread which showed that almost half of the total war was single ships, not convoys. I suspect this held true for probably 39-42.
I second Salvadoreno's suggestion of traffic and assignment to historically accurate Indian Ocean, Baltic, Black, Eastern North Sea and Western Pacific missions.
Since the sinking time is such an issue, I suggest this be made an option. I like the way it is in GW and NYGM TM, and am looking forward to the tweaks and/or enhancements and I wouldn't like it if you weaken it too much.
I like the idea of Wulfmann to make claims and let BDU decide if you get credit, with, perhaps, a random denial for various reasons given.
I like the slide out functions, including the flag mod in NYGM Tonnage, Sale's 4 dial slideout, Reece's consol and other slideouts, the minefield slideout; and the enhanced instruments and 1500 meter overlay in NYGM's mod. The two speed-distance slide outs I find useless and would suggest a poll be taken to see if anyone uses them. If not, delete and replace with more useful info, such as time of entrance into the war, with flags, or some other info (which I know is already in F1) which would be more useful.
There is a thread to the effect that a wiz wheel and/or circular slide rule is possible. This would be a great addition to the WO's tools.
I'll continue to think about the new mod and will offer suggestions.
Thanks to the entire GW team for there wonderful work.
irish1958

[fredbass]

I haven't played GW at all yet, but I am anxiously looking forward to downloading it soon. I am still progressing my skills and slowly becoming less dependent on assistance, but I am one who doesn't need too much realism. The bottom line is having fun and I definitely don't enjoy boredom. We've been told that GW gives us immersion. For me, too much realism is not immersive but boring, as some previous posters have noted. Please keep that in mind.

Thanks

Oh, since some have mentioned the time you may have to watch to see if Ship sinks, if a ship sinks after we leave, (if possible), can we or would we still get credit?

[panthercules]

The two speed-distance slide outs I find useless and would suggest a poll be taken to see if anyone uses them.
irish1958

I second everything Irish said, except count me as one of those who loves the two speed chart pull-outs and would like to see them stay.

I also think there may be too many random/single warships patrolling up and down the US East Coast during Early 1942 - I've been on three Drumbeat patrols (1 way back with some RUB version, and 2 last month with GW1.0/UC) and each time have encountered tons of Elco's and escort-type warships patrolling off of New England (way back when) and Georgia/Florida coast, with relatively sparse merchant traffic. From what I'd read and heard before, this came as a surprise as I did not think that the Americans had that many spare escorts lying around (after lend-leasing a bunch to England and sending some to Pacific) and that they pretty much saved most of the ones that they did have in this theater for convoy duty in the North Atlantic rather than doing a lot of coastal patrolling during this period. (I don't know if this is coming from GW or the UC overlay to it, but if there's some way to deal with that in the GW campaign next time around that would be great).

If there is any way to get the wolfpack and the longer repair time mod ideas worked into the next GW that would be great.

And the claim/confirmation idea is a great one if it can be done - I have found myself hanging around a couple of times on these latest patrols waiting for the ships to sink to make sure I get credit for them, since I left once last patrol when it looked for sure like a tanker was dead and never got credit for her. It would be good to have at least some chance of getting credit, but then again it would probably tick me off not to get credit for one that I and my whole bridge crew could see break in half and go under on the spot, so I'm sure working out the percentages so that we Kaleuns didn't get screwed too often would probably be pretty tough.

Probably my key problems/issues at this point would be the repair times issues and surface visibility issues - I've tried various combinations of the 8Km and 16Km mods and fixes and can't seem to find one so far that hits quite the right balance between being able to spot and be spotted on the surface at reasonable-seeming ranges and not having light or dark bands at the horizon, etc. I know a lot of work is still on-going in various places to adress all these issues, but whatever progress you could make in the next GW release would be great.

Thanks for all the great work - still keeping the game fresh after all this time is an amazing achievement :up:

[Redwine]

The engine room is ROARING with activity and the GW Development Team is truly excited about where we are going!

The Grey Wolves Development Team is charging ahead full steam towards the
next major worldwide release of The Grey Wolves.

Now that you have put your socks back on, we are going to
blow them off again.

:up: :up: :up:



Thanks for effort...! :up:

If you accept any "customer feed back" :D or sugestions.

Just personal opinions, not the truth ... only personal taste may be you can found of some utility. :up:

I tryed some diferent campaign files, now i am trying the War Ace one, and before the NYGM.

I have not time to test the GW yet, and i will wait for to finish my present files from War Ace, and the final version of GW for next campaign.

In the campaigns i tryed, i note some thing not of my pleasure.

Too much planes for my pleasure. I dont say i dont want airplane attacks, but to have 5 attacks in few miles, some time it is imposible to sail and game become unplayable, and with 5 or 6 planes on each attack.... i thing so is too much.
I want as much 2 or 3 attack in the go way and 2 or 3 in the back home way, it is just more than enought to enjoy airplane attacks.


Too many DDs, there are lot of task forces, too many for my taste, and convoys are very few and hard to found. The main function of subs was to prey cargo ships, not to fight against task forces, may be a not too much task forces and a little more convoys is better.

Harbour traphic is wonderful, but too much units eats my FPS, i have a PIV 3.4 Ghz, an ATI X800 XT Platinum Edition 256 Mb, and 3 GB RAM memory, lot of windows services and process killed and it is normal my FPS drop down to 7 FPS at ports.

Harbour traphic is wonderful, but may be it must to be a little bit more moderate.

Deck gun and AAA guns power are normally low in the previous files i tested.

I increased my deck gun and AAA power. I think so a line of holes in the waterline must be enought to sink any ships, disregarding how big it was.

Each deck gun bullet 88/105 had between 7/8 and 10/12 Kg of high explosives, enough to open a hole in the thiny hull of merchants.

A pair of holes in each compartement must cause an uncontrolable flood.

Torpedoes normally are underpower or ships are over-resistent and hard to sink.

I found a balance at my pleasure, using NYGM Ship Damage V 1.36 beta, and Torpedo Overpower mod, so a big ship can need between 1 and 3 torps to sink, and a battleship must to need betwen 2 and 4 according with critical probability.
And with these settings, in every convoy attack i was enforced to surface to terminate many ships.... and follow the convoy after the attack for many hours, looking for the damages ships with 1 or 2 torps who not sink and sails slowly and terminate them.

I was able some times to sink a Nelson with 2 torps, but may be a King George scape with 3 torps inside.

I was able some times to blast a C3 with one torp, but some times it scape with 2 torps inside, and i need to take risk on surface to terminate it with my deck gun or waste one more torp on it.

A good balance in my opinion.

DDs are normally over powered in its capabilities of detection.
I dont remember now, but in the past some guy add information from the USA Navy where mentioned a sub at silent runing was only detected when at 50 m. just when you was passing over it.

Silent runing must give you a good protection, except if you have the bad luck to be pinged. Any way you can not hunt too much at silent running.

But in this way, you can practice and improve your attack technics and tacticas, to prepare a good stealth approach and attack, and have a good way to escape to avoid the pings.

Clouds texture has too much influence over night vision.

A good random weather is nice.

And to have many new ships is so interesting.

The Capt. America 400m Depth Gauge and Instruments Fixs Mods are for me a "must be"

Even if you made a supermod, it is good to have a manual editing guide to add some things, like locations and new ships, because all we have our own installation with lot of personal changes.

Any thing you and the team can do about it will be wellcome.




Well, are only my personal opinions, and i wait you can found them useful. Just another more opinion...

A new time lot of thanks to you and all the GW team for job and effort !!! :up: :up:

[Highbury]

I could definitly go for no message at all.

Basically what I would like to see removed is sitting there for a day or two waiting for your kill to be confirmed. IMO as it is now, we have mod work focused on trying to make the actual damage more realistic, but it has a side effect of making the game less realistic. I am open to suggestion on how it is achieved, but waiting for them to sink has gotta go.

Yes you can argue that ships took days to sink, nobody can sucessfully argue that the Uboats would hang around to watch.

Lets make one thing clear, hanging around to watch a target sink is entirely up to you and not a feature of NYGM!
If a commander had the opportunity to finish off a ship, he would do it, not wait around for it to sink.
In convoys half-sunken ships would be floating around for days even weeks, and would attract the attention of u-boats all around.
There are many stories of these ships, with both u-boats and escorts trying to finish them off and them eventually being towed to a harbor for repairs.
I have never read that a commander would mark a ship as a kill for just being damaged, unless there were other circumstances or misunderstandings involved.

Lets make a few things clear. First off your "Let's make one thing clear" attitude is rude. Wanna respond to me, do it like an adult, not some brat jumping up and down waving his history books.

2nd, read everything I posted. I did not say anyone would mark down damaged boats as a kill. I said they would not waste time hanging around ships that have been obviously critically damaged.

But thank you Professor, you sure showed me.

[Wulfmann]

Well, let me pick on GW a little for trivial historic stuff.:nope:
The first type 1936A German destroyer was Z-23 commissioned on September 15, 1940 and first entered service in March 1941. She was one of the Bismarck escorts. None of the early ones received the twin turret until Z-23 was damaged (rammed Z-24 in a fog) in Jan 1942. While being repaired they shipped a twin turret to Trondheim Norway were it was installed and she was operational with it in May 1942.
Since the below screen is Wilhelmshaven on the first day of the war I might suggest this is inaccurate.:yep:
Would being historically correct not be a worthy goal? Not being a jerk, or not too much of one but am just mentioning it if having it right matters.:lol:

Scharnhorst was getting her Atlantic bow and stuff before the war at Wilhelmshaven or actually Brunsbuttel (She was attacked there on Sept 4 by Brit bombers.) Can any of the German guys suggest where Brunsbuttel is from the current port? I just added Scharnhorst to the existing port so I could get a nice look at her on the outbound.:sunny:

Wulfmann

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/Wulfmann/Z-23-in-39.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/Wulfmann/Scharnhorst-at-Wil.jpg

[schuhart]

Lets make a few things clear. First off your "Let's make one thing clear" attitude is rude. Wanna respond to me, do it like an adult, not some brat jumping up and down waving his history books.

2nd, read everything I posted. I did not say anyone would mark down damaged boats as a kill. I said they would not waste time hanging around ships that have been obviously critically damaged.

But thank you Professor, you sure showed me.

I really fail to see how a sentence like that would appear rude to you, and it was surely not my intention to do so?

I have certainly read all that you wrote including this remark:
I saw it critically damaged, I marked it as a kill.

I do not see any sure way of telling, if a target is critically hit in as well NYGM as the real thing, as the litterature also shows. Thats why i do not understand the argument of hanging around in stead of just finishing the target off and move on. A point that you do not comment at all?

And last if you really think of me as a brat and yourself as an adult, then your post and especially the last remark does not help you much in that respect.

- Schuhart

[irish1958]

Panthercules is right. If people feel the charts are useful, leave them in. Or perhaps, give us a choice for what to include in the pull outs. Perhaps just changing the TGA's so we can decide which to use.
He is absolutely right about the plethera of escorts and military vessels vrs scarcity of merchants on the US East coast. I remember early in the war NOTHING got through from the Carribean and South America.

SH3CMDR is going to add thermal layers and random screwups.
This game keeps getting better and better thanks to you guys!
irish1958

[Kpt. Lehmann]

For you guys who are interested in looking to the east...

Well you asked for it, and you're gonna get it!!!

[Kpt. Lehmann]

For you guys who are interested in looking to the east...

Well you asked for it, and you're gonna get it!!!


I'll give you a bit more detail tomorrow... I'm off to work. :arrgh!:

[bigboywooly]

Scharnhorst was getting her Atlantic bow and stuff before the war at Wilhelmshaven or actually Brunsbuttel (She was attacked there on Sept 4 by Brit bombers.) Can any of the German guys suggest where Brunsbuttel is from the current port? I just added Scharnhorst to the existing port so I could get a nice look at her on the outbound.:sunny:

Wulfmann



Brunsbuttel is at the end of the Kiel canal where it is marked - in some mods anyway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunsb%C3%BCttel

[Seminole]

I may as well put in my 2 cents worth for what ever that is worth. Maybe nothing and that is fine.

Realism is one thing but sitting and watching grass grow while hitting yourself on the head with a hammer is quite another.


I spent (wasted might be a better word) a couple of RT days doing a Baltic October 39 cruise and all I did was watch a 15 mps wind blow with heavy precip and or fog, the entire trip, while spotting nothing and hearing nothing on sonar for the entire patrol. Out of fuel...and I mean down to the last drop...I crept back to Kiel with all torpedoes aboard. Most excitement was faithfully changing the watches ever 8 hours...the charm of novelty does tend to wear a bit thin after a couple of weeks of this though.

I like and want realism up to a point but dang it does have it's limits. How much fun would a wife be who nagged 24/7 but never came to bed....:shifty:

[Reece]

Hi, I use GW and it's great & look forward to changes being made for the better to make this into a very good addon.:D Thanks to the dev team for their fine work even though the pay sucks!:rotfl:If you wish to try out my sfx mod it will correct some of the sound mixing problems associated with sounds such as loading & firing torpedo's, you should be able to press the 'Q' key to load the torpedo & once loaded press the fire button to hear the torpedo firing only! As it is when you press the 'Q' key you hear the loading sound, then later the fire button pressed you hear the loading sound again, then the firing sound that is almost drowned out by the loading sound!:-? Give it a try in the accademy - torpedo practice for a quick test.:yep:
Cheers.

[bigboywooly]

Hope you will include Anvarts lit ships for neutrals and can you change Merthyr on the map to Swansea in next release as Merthyr inland and not on coast
Also the ports along the Kiel canal would be cool as would maybe an auto plot as its a nightmare to get thru - maybe some changes needed to the canal as it was big enough in RL for the Bismark to sail thru


15 September 1940: The Bismarck leaves Hamburg for the first time. At 1658 hours, while steaming down the Elbe, collides with the bow tug Atlantik but neither ship is damaged, and at 1902, the Bismarck anchors in Brunsbüttel roads. During the night of 15/16 September, while anchored, there is an air raid alarm in which the anti-aircraft battery expends 13 x 10.5 cm, 136 x 3.7 cm, and 191 x 2 cm projectiles. No success observed. 16-17 September 1940: The battleship passes through the Kiel Canal assisted by tugboats. At 1448 on the 17th, the Bismarck enters the Kiel-Holtenau sluice, leaves the Kiel Canal, and then comes alongside Scheerhafen, Kiel.

Maybe some other historical events such as Dunkirk maybe the battle of Britain and harbour raids by destroyers ( Uboat war ace 2 has all these and must say they are kinda cool ) stuff like that keeps my TC down as there is action in the channel.

Now most of the major capital ships are available hope fully these can be scripted too with radio messages to guide uboats to the action
http://www.kbismarck.com/histoperi.html timeline for the Bismark for example
http://www.graham.day.dsl.pipex.com/ww2024.htm the Spee
This one for the Admiral Scheer http://www.saintjohn.nbcc.nb.ca/~Heritage/JervisBay/AdmiralScheer.htm has some great sea meetings with German raiders/merchants and even a uboat - something that could be added as a mission - to rendevouz with the Scheer - something a bit different from a normal patrol

Well thats me done for a bit now :rotfl:

Cant wait

[frog7]

When the next mod comes out will we be able to install it over our other GW mod?:rock: coz i like it when things go on nicely...oh and yes this is great news more to look forward to.:up:

[Sailor Steve]

Brunsbuttel is at the end of the Kiel canal where it is marked - in some mods anyway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunsb%C3%BCttel
But is the harbor correctly placed, out in the Elbe? Carotio's mod has it move up inside the Canal, directly across from the city.

[bigboywooly]

Brunsbuttel is at the end of the Kiel canal where it is marked - in some mods anyway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunsb%C3%BCttel
But is the harbor correctly placed, out in the Elbe? Carotio's mod has it move up inside the Canal, directly across from the city.

http://www.shipsunderway.co.uk/KIEL%20CANAL.1.JPG
Well from this pic I gather it just inside the kanal

Shouldnt be too hard to move it as long as I know exactly where it is
Will keep looking

http://img347.imageshack.us/img347/4097/screenhunter1386ql.jpg
Well from this there is the entrance to the canal just inside the canal and a seperate harbour

[Sailor Steve]

Cool stuff! Thanks for posting that.:rock: :sunny:

Carioto is right; the harbor in the original Canal mod is completely misplaced.

[bigboywooly]

Cool stuff! Thanks for posting that.:rock: :sunny:

Carioto is right; the harbor in the original Canal mod is completely misplaced.
Yes there should be a seperate harbour and locks to the canal entrance - hopefully this will be put right in the next GW release:yep:

[IronOutlaw]

Kapitän zur See Lehmann
Sehr Geehrt Kapitän!

I have installed SH III, and GW. The game is running well, no problems.

My question- is there a way one can determine if another mod is going to work with GW, maybe by type of file, etc., if it is added later?

My knowledge of how the insides of a PC works is pretty minimal, no, let's be honest, virtually non existent, hence this question may sound a tad weird.

Maybe your update will give me what I want anyway, so the question will be redundant. However, I would appreciate any advie on this.

[mskvforester]

Hello, Is ther a way to incorporate into Grey Wolves more damaged merchants in the Brit ports? I read a quote from Churchill the other day that was interesting.

"Every week our ports became more congested and we fell further behind. At the beginning of March over 2,600,000 tons of damaged shipping had accumulated, of which more than half was immobilised by need of repairs." (this is 1941 hes's talking about)

MOst of the time when I poke my scope into a port there might be a few healthy merchants floating around, but there are never any damaged ones.

Mike

[Uber Gruber]

Will it be NYGM 2.2 compatible :rotfl:

[Bewolf]

Ok, first post here. First let me say, since I got the Grey Wolves Supermod, I play this game all over again. The atmsophere, the sounds, the graphics. It's superb work done there, simply amazing and way more immersive then before.

I also really like the new ship damage model. Seriously, it just makes so much more sense, all in all. Whenever I had the feeling I wait to long I just put another eel into the wreck to make it sink. That is corresponding to what I read, so absolutely no complains here.

The only thing in line of critiques I have are the aradion transmissions. Driving a Type IX to South Africa, which already takes around 15 minutes with time compressions, goes really bad with all those messages. I needed almost 2 hours to reach down there cuz all of the transmissions, but then again also did not want to miss then cuz there may have been something important in there. So that's kinda bugging.

I also wished more mission style transmissions. Like when the Bismarck was chased I waited for a call like "all U boats proceed too PQXX to support Bismarck" or something. Would have been seriously neat. Aside the Norway campaign I yet have to see that.

Anyways, keep up the great work, listen to suggestions but do not become bugged by it!

[bigboywooly]

Further to my first wish list :rotfl: Is it possible to add Sergs AI subs in the game not just the German ones but the S Class too and the Baleo Class he is close to completing.He has Upholder he is working on too
And maybe the reports from Uboats CB was working on - a lot better than the big red squares all over the map and it means you have to do some actual plotting on the map

As well as all the new capital ships - Hood/Prince of Wales etc

[Wulfmann]

I would like to see the 1944 era more difficult with Allied PT Boats right off the base and destroyers off each port with planes going back and forth. The patrol grids in 1944 should be changed, from April on to around England. That is what I have read from all accounts so it seems we should do the same. Certainly would be action packed.
When I do 1944 GW patrols they are no different than other eras. That was not the case in real life.
Is that too hard to do?:hmm:

I think I just gave myself a new project for the SCR and RND.mis files:rotfl:

Wulfmann

[Safe-Keeper]

For you guys who are interested in looking to the east...

Well you asked for it, and you're gonna get it!!!Why does that so much sound like a threat:-??

As for ships being wrongly reported as sunk, I visited this carrier (forgot the name) in Corpus Cristi, US, that came to be known by the Japanese as the "Ghost Ship" as it repeatedly re-appeared after being reported as sunk. Just mentioning it.

[Henry Wood]

I disagree; the records are rife with reports of ship sinkings that later turned out to be mistaken. Quite a few ships sailed home after being reported as sunk by this or that submarine.

Exactly my point! I am that commander with no benefit of hindsight or after-war intel. I saw it critically damaged, I marked it as a kill. I got the hell outta there. I am describing how it would be for the Kaleun on the scene, not investigating it after the war.

I'm in the middle of reading 'Operation Drumbeat' and it has a perfect illustration of commanders claiming kills when the vessels were in fact later rescued/towed for repair despite great damage having been inflicted: Reinhard Hardegan claimed 3 tankers on one patrol which eventually lived to sail again. To incorporate this and allow a SH3 commander to leave the scene and receive tonnage credit for a "kill-that-never-was", wouldn't some method of "claiming" a kill have to be modded into the game in some way? What I mean is, you inflict catastrophic damage on a prey; you sail off claiming a kill; however, if the vessel does not eventually sink, you will never receive credit for it in the game, even though in WWII real life this happened many times.

Henry

[jaxa]

It will be good to fix stupid bug with radar antennas position (FuMO 30, 61/64) - remove it to the left side of conning tower. Somebody has found that it's possible to make radio antenna movable - it looks awesome.

[Tigrone]

I'm afraid no matter what I do, my visibility at night and underwater is very poor. Even with my Nvidea 6600 cranked up to 100% brightness, I can barely see the man next to me on the bridge. I cannot see any of the lovely harbor traffic, because I've always left in darkeness. I have to leave by map, IFR, and plot a course out blindfolded. I really would like to be able to see just a bit farther underwater. I have to move the camera to touching distance underwater or at night to see anything. I've tried 3 different versions of the scene file with no joy. I'm playing with the 16km light option.

[bigboywooly]

I'm afraid no matter what I do, my visibility at night and underwater is very poor. Even with my Nvidea 6600 cranked up to 100% brightness, I can barely see the man next to me on the bridge. I cannot see any of the lovely harbor traffic, because I've always left in darkeness. I have to leave by map, IFR, and plot a course out blindfolded. I really would like to be able to see just a bit farther underwater. I have to move the camera to touching distance underwater or at night to see anything. I've tried 3 different versions of the scene file with no joy. I'm playing with the 16km light option.

Same as with the scene file
Never used to be even after adding GW
A choice in the new release would be nice - I know a lot of people dont use the external cameras but you can get some great pics

[U-Bones]

I'm afraid no matter what I do, my visibility at night and underwater is very poor. Even with my Nvidea 6600 cranked up to 100% brightness, I can barely see the man next to me on the bridge. I cannot see any of the lovely harbor traffic, because I've always left in darkeness. I have to leave by map, IFR, and plot a course out blindfolded. I really would like to be able to see just a bit farther underwater. I have to move the camera to touching distance underwater or at night to see anything. I've tried 3 different versions of the scene file with no joy. I'm playing with the 16km light option.

Same card, same issue. Plus I have color deficiencies and weak eyes... I use stock Env files and scene.dat on top of 16k with very minor (to me) horizon issues. Still a bit dark at times, but it works for me.

[Safe-Keeper]

Is it perhaps possible to let traffic in ports consist of Random Generated Groups instead of scripted vessels?

I'm growing a bit tired of seeing the same scene every time I leave harbour;).

[Michel]

[QUOTE=CWorth]Great news...can't wait for this.

Only one minor suggestion...a optional lite version of the .SCR layer with fewer ships in the harbors to help with framerates for those with slower CPU's/GPU's.

Ive got a pc capable of flank speed ahead in any game... and even here its sluggish :) Perhaps an overall pruning of harbor activity world wide would help.

I second that! :(

More convoys would be nice... The sinking so much discussed by others is something to look out too.

Cheers.

[stabiz]

I'm afraid no matter what I do, my visibility at night and underwater is very poor. Even with my Nvidea 6600 cranked up to 100% brightness, I can barely see the man next to me on the bridge. I cannot see any of the lovely harbor traffic, because I've always left in darkeness. I have to leave by map, IFR, and plot a course out blindfolded. I really would like to be able to see just a bit farther underwater. I have to move the camera to touching distance underwater or at night to see anything. I've tried 3 different versions of the scene file with no joy. I'm playing with the 16km light option.

I also have a 6600 (GT), and I fixed it with the scene_dat.txt in the tweaker.

[U-Bones]

I'm afraid no matter what I do, my visibility at night and underwater is very poor. Even with my Nvidea 6600 cranked up to 100% brightness, I can barely see the man next to me on the bridge. I cannot see any of the lovely harbor traffic, because I've always left in darkeness. I have to leave by map, IFR, and plot a course out blindfolded. I really would like to be able to see just a bit farther underwater. I have to move the camera to touching distance underwater or at night to see anything. I've tried 3 different versions of the scene file with no joy. I'm playing with the 16km light option.
I also have a 6600 (GT), and I fixed it with the scene_dat.txt in the tweaker.
Could you be more specific ? Thanks in advance !
Edit: Ah, nevermind, just saw your seperate thread. Simply editing transparency was not enough for me, I actually needed the colors lightened.

[Redwine]

About Visibility at night :

Of course there are guy who works on visibility mods, who have better know about it than me, but you can increse the contrast of the ships silouete at night changing the night texture for sky and sea surface into de .dat file.


1]
Use the SH3 Unpacker program and look for SkyColors_XXX.dat files into "Env" folder....

Extract Sky_atl1.tga and reflex_atalantic.tga

Modify the upper left square colour in both files up to your pleasure, try and try up to you become satisfied.

When you are satisfied repack the textures another time into the dat files where you pick up them.

This will increase the contrast of the ships silouete against the sea and sky background at night.

2]
I note the main influence in night visibility are the clouds textures, if you use a "close" textures you never will have good visibility at night. Dense storm texture will give you a very dark night, a clear sky will give you a good or aceptable night visibility.

Try changing clouds textures.

I hope it can help....best regards, Red. :up:

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

actually, i also found underwater visibility to be bad as well, especially at night...

... which is the way i thinkit should be.

this adds to the immersion a bit, makes
you scurry back inside the sub... where you should be :lol: all the while
aware of the murky darkness just on the other side of thehalf inch or so,
of the hull that separates you from the implaccable ocean... your other enemy...

(as you can see, i'm not a great lover of external views in a sub sim :cool: )

--Mike

[Redwine]

If you want to improve the visibility underwater, you can use TimeTraveller Minitweaker or manually open the file scene.dat with an hexagesimal editor and adjust these values :

1]

Valor Original/ Original Value : (-4)
0003C8 > 6F 67 00 00 00 80 C0 00 @@....Fog....A.

Valor Visibilidad Bajo el Agua Mejorada/ Improved Underwater Visibility : (-3)
0003C8 > 6F 67 00 00 00 40 C0 00 @@....Fog...@A.


2]

Valor Original/ Original value : (18)
0003C8 > 6F 67 00 00 00 80 C0 00 00 90 41 00 ..A.PF<....UpLight

Valor Visibilidad Bajo el Agua Mejorada/ Improved Underwater Visibility : (21)
0003C8 > 6F 67 00 00 00 40 C0 00 00 A8 41 00 ..¨.PF<....UpLight


3]
if you have this modified by a mod, check and set Original value at :

Valor Original / Original Value : (120)
0019de > 44 69 73 74 61 6e 63 65 00 00 00 f0 42 MinDistance…öB



4]

Valor Original/Original Value : (180)
0019f4 > 73 74 61 6e 63 65 00 00 00 34 43 MaxDistance…4C

Valor Visibilidad Bajo el Agua Mejorada/ Improved Underwater Visibility: (300)
0019f4 > 73 74 61 6e 63 65 00 00 00 96 43 MaxDistance….C

[JScones]

And don't forget that if you use SH3Cmdr, it controls water clarity via a very simple interface option.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

For you guys who are interested in looking to the east...

Well you asked for it, and you're gonna get it!!!


I meant to follow up on this a few days ago... and since things here are getting a bit off-topic... here it is.

In GWX (The Grey Wolves Freeware Expansion) you will be able to operate out of Penang and other eastern BASES... (yes more than one)

Sweeping additions are being included in the Indian Ocean/Eastern Ops and in regions relevant to eastern U-boat operational areas.

You will also be able to sail out of at least one other new operational area NOT in the east.

Furthermore, you will be able to do all of the above without losing any accessibility to the regions, flotillas, or campaign events and/or U-boat operational areas already scripted in GW.

We will expand your horizons mates! :up: :up: :up:

[bigboywooly]

For you guys who are interested in looking to the east...

Well you asked for it, and you're gonna get it!!!


I meant to follow up on this a few days ago... and since things here are getting a bit off-topic... here it is.

In GWX (The Grey Wolves Freeware Expansion) you will be able to operate out of Penang and other eastern BASES... (yes more than one)

Sweeping additions are being included in the Indian Ocean/Eastern Ops and in regions relevant to eastern U-boat operational areas.

You will also be able to sail out of at least one other new operational area NOT in the east.

Furthermore, you will be able to do all of the above without losing any accessibility to the regions, flotillas, or campaign events and/or U-boat operational areas already scripted in GW.

We will expand your horizons mates! :up: :up: :up:

WOOHOO:rock:
Cool - without losing any operational bases or flotillas eh
Kudos
This will open up a vast new area of play and keep me tied to the computer even longer:up:
Drooling at the thought

[irish1958]

[quote=Kpt. Lehmann]For you guys who are interested in looking to the east...

Well you asked for it, and you're gonna get it!!!


Wonderful; more choices. The game keeps getting better all the time.
irish195

[Safe-Keeper]

:o. Plain and simple.

Good modders are a game's best friend these days, hm;)?

[baxter]

Originally Posted by Kpt. Lehmann:
"I meant to follow up on this a few days ago... and since things here are getting a bit off-topic... here it is.

In GWX (The Grey Wolves Freeware Expansion) you will be able to operate out of Penang and other eastern BASES... (yes more than one)

Sweeping additions are being included in the Indian Ocean/Eastern Ops and in regions relevant to eastern U-boat operational areas.

You will also be able to sail out of at least one other new operational area NOT in the east.

Furthermore, you will be able to do all of the above without losing any accessibility to the regions, flotillas, or campaign events and/or U-boat operational areas already scripted in GW.

We will expand your horizons mates!"




Excellent news! This will be a major improvement, it adds much more to the game.

[Mast]

That's excellent news! I can't wait. :rock:

Mast

[Ducimus]

I've been chomping at the bit to tell you guys. As adding stuff to indian ocean has been one of my primary jobs in the GW's team, and i know that its been a wanted thing for alot of subsim'ers.. myself included.

I and a few others on the GW team did our homework, and added some convoys that where historically present. I also took the initiative and added a few that i thought would have been (or should have been) present. Added a few other things here or there as well ;)

Overall, the indian ocean is more active now - however, because it's so far removed, contact reports will be few and infrequent as information the kreigsmarine had out there was sketchy at best. So you'll have to rely on your intuition, common sense, logical thinking, and quite a few hydrophone checks to reap your tonnage.

[bigboywooly]

Be nice as have had a recce down there and found nothing lol

[Wulfmann]

So I assume there will be a lot of Greek warships there?.

Will someone be making the Georgos Averroff? She was active there for most of the war, Right VH?

Wulfmann

[Salvadoreno]

Sweeet. Wow looks like ill have to download GW now... grr. Imma have to go back and forth. NYGM and GW. grrr!!!

[Rooks]

One for all the newbies (like me)
DOCUMENTATION please!!
I run GW - and it is awesome, but I haven't been part of the SH3 community long so I have no idea of what all the features are, how to use them or who's incorporated mod does what. :damn:

A proper manual type thingo of what exactly has been changed from stock SH3 and what effect it has on gameplay would really help.

[JScones]

Visit The Grey Wolves website (http://www.users.on.net/~jscones/TGW/) for all the latest news and information, including FAQ and online readme.

[baxter]

I've been chomping at the bit to tell you guys. As adding stuff to indian ocean has been one of my primary jobs in the GW's team, and i know that its been a wanted thing for alot of subsim'ers.. myself included.

I and a few others on the GW team did our homework, and added some convoys that where historically present. I also took the initiative and added a few that i thought would have been (or should have been) present. Added a few other things here or there as well ;)

Overall, the indian ocean is more active now - however, because it's so far removed, contact reports will be few and infrequent as information the kreigsmarine had out there was sketchy at best. So you'll have to rely on your intuition, common sense, logical thinking, and quite a few hydrophone checks to reap your tonnage.


Sounds really good, I'm looking forward to this. Thanks.

[THE_MASK]

Fantastic mod . The better SH3 gets the better SH4 will have to be .

[Rooks]

Visit The Grey Wolves website (http://www.users.on.net/%7Ejscones/TGW/) for all the latest news and information, including FAQ and online readme.

I meant after reading all of the above some of the included mods have almost no description.

[Cheapskate]

Hope you will include Anvarts lit ships for neutrals and can you change Merthyr on the map to Swansea in next release as Merthyr inland and not on coast


Just a very small point. There are at least 8 places in Wales called Merthyr but most are differentiated by a second element to the place-name. The Merthyr you are probably thinking of is Merthyr Tydfil and is, as you say, way inland.

The port shown on the SH3 map as Merthyr is actually Barry/Barry Island ..... Swansea is much further to the west.

The map compiler seems to have taken the name from Merthyr Dyfan the town adjoining Barry to the north.

[bigboywooly]

Hope you will include Anvarts lit ships for neutrals and can you change Merthyr on the map to Swansea in next release as Merthyr inland and not on coast


Just a very small point. There are at least 8 places in Wales called Merthyr but most are differentiated by a second element to the place-name. The Merthyr you are probably thinking of is Merthyr Tydfil and is, as you say, way inland.

The port shown on the SH3 map as Merthyr is actually Barry/Barry Island ..... Swansea is much further to the west.

The map compiler seems to have taken the name from Merthyr Dyfan the town immediately to the north of Barry.

Quite possibly so
Didnt realise Barry was as big as it is
According to a quick search on the net the docks used to repair white line ships as well as being used as a jump of point for the DDay landings

[Cheapskate]

Quite possibly so
Didnt realise Barry was as big as it is
According to a quick search on the net the docks used to repair white line ships as well as being used as a jump of point for the DDay landings

Well, I don't remember it being that big. Though to be honest, I can only remember the Funfair there....and my first real romance ( only lasted about 4 hours.... but remains indelibly engraved on my memory!!). Oops, better get back on topic!!

I must say, I'm surprised this port was included on the SH3 map, particularly as they left off major ports like Swansea and Cardiff. No doubt there is a good reason for this but I'm darned if I can think what it is.

[bigboywooly]

True
Cardiff I have now IIRC it came with GW
I didnt realise Barry was as big either which is why I suggested Swansea
http://www.barrywales.co.uk/tomclemett/bollards.asp

There is a lot missing from the original game as is shown by all the extra ports added thru various mods - esp on the Eastern side of the Atlantic
I suppose its another of Ubis halfhearted projects

[IronOutlaw]

I am on my way home from my first patrol in GW. Outstanding upgrade, so much better than the original.

One thing that did impress me is the amount of radio traffic that has been included. On my trip's to Germany, I always include a few days in Freiburg im Bresgau to visit the archives. I don't wish to remind myself of how muchmoney I have spent on photocopying, but suffice to say it is a lot, mostly on KTB's and Signal Code Books.

I am particularly interested in being able to reproduce credible looking documentation of my patrols. To this end, can anyone tell me where I can find the radio messages transmitted during my patrol? I am also after the content of the message so that I can produce an FTB (Funktagebuch) to compliment my KTB and Torpedo Shooting Reports.

Just one point on the torpedoes, has anyone any idea where I might find details on torpedo production with a guide to serial numbers? I can make them up from examples I have but a more accurate list would be good.

If any other commanders would like the templates of these documents, let me know via a personal message and I will gladly pass them on. Also guidelines on how to fill them in.

[zzsteven]

Radio messages: data/Campaigns/Campaign/messages_en.txt if playing in English, ....messages_de if in German.

zz

[IronOutlaw]

I did as you advised irish1958, and checked through SH3 Commander to rate the crew. I am starting a new patrol with a new boat and a new commander. SH3 Cdr did not appear to allow me to award rates to any of the crew who did not have them. Maybe I missed something but I think I tried all possible options.

This is a real bug to me as Navy training, in any recent Navy, only has trained personnel on board submarines out on operational patrol, with trainees aboard only when doing a training cruise, with the exception here of an Oberfähnrich. Granted some of them will be "earing their dolphins," (to coin a modern phrase), but they will have attained their specialist qualification well before hand, and have completed their basic submarine conversion course.

For ordinary sailors, first it is basic training, then specialist rate training then they get posted to operational vessels. In the case of submarines, they must first do a specialist sub training course before operational deployment. The only training they do on board is to learn all they can about everyone elses job as soon as possible.

That the game has Stabsoberbootsmann, Stabsbootsmann and Bootsmann personnel without a rate is ludicrous in the extreme. In addition, the Bootsmann who sometimes appears with a Medic qualification is representing someone who had a regular rate (usually Radio or Sonar to protect his hands), and got the Medic rate (really only a first aid or para medic qualification), to carry out basic care. Generally, the only doctors aboard U-boats were aboard the Milchkuh's.

The other error in ranks concerns the officers. The Navigator was a Warrant Officer, not a Commissioned Officer. The Commissioned Officers were, the CO, I WO, II WO and Ing O, with a possible Fähnrich on board as III WO.

There is an ideal breakdown of crews, responsibilities and watches in Jak Mallman-Showell's book, Wolfpacks at War.

Another point about the crews is that the Watch crews were broken into 3 Watches, whereas the Engine Room crews were in only in 2 Watches. I use the "No Fatigue" option so it is not an issue for me, but it might be of interest to those who prefer to manually switch their crews around.

So, if the crews could get their rates first it would certainly enhance "getting to know" one's crew and make it easier to deploy the crew around the boat!

[irish1958]

Outlaw of Hard Metal
You are right of course. The game was developed by a team of Romanian (?) computer experts. I think that they did a fantastic job and there are wonderful hints in the game that they would have developed amazing details. However monetary constraints from Ubisoft intervened and that was that.
When I start a new career, I take the boat out for a shakedown cruise past the escort vessel, and then return to port. At that point I go into SH3CMDR and assign my crew. I then equip my boat the way I want it, and start my 1st patrol (which will be patrol number 2 in SHIII).
That is the best I can do. I hope SHIV will be better.
irish1958

[IronOutlaw]

Thanks again Irish 1958! A couple of questions.

How long do you take the boat out for?

Do you confine that "patrol" to Kieler Bucht, or go futher out into the Baltic?

[Wilko]

Hey Irish, thats a good idea, next career I start I'll do that, though I might do like a 1/2 the crew so I can still develope a few of them but I'll asign enough to cover the engines and the foward torp room and a couple of gunners and then develope the rest as needed :up:

[mr chris]

Am having such fun playing GW after playing the stock game for so long. Did not know so much was possible with this game. Am looking forward to the next grey wolves release, Have a couple of suggestions for the add on if they have not been thought of before.

1) Would it be possible to start your first patrol before the outbrake of war between Germany and and the UK in 1939, so you could be on station at your patrol zone when the UK declared war. Instead in GW you leave base on the day war is declared. From what i have read this was not the case during the actual war.

2) Would it be possible to add all the fantasic ships being built by the members of this forum, to the next release? I know that AG124 has many merchants available to download and IAMBECOMELIFE has many ships he is working on. If it would be possible to add those it would add many more juicey targets for my torps!:D

Thanks once again to the GW team for all there hard work.:up:

[irish1958]

Outlaw of Hard Metal
I take my sub as far as the escort goes and turns around. I then check the depth and go to periscope depth, test my scopes and hydrophone; if available, I test sonar, surface, and test radar if available. I then cruise back to port and dock.
I then go to SH3CMDR and assign my crew. When I start the game I configure my boat and start a patrol. This gets around the problem of not getting credit for any tonnage on your first patrol.
irish1958

[bigboywooly]

Outlaw of Hard Metal
This gets around the problem of not getting credit for any tonnage on your first patrol.
irish1958

Problem of not getting tonnage on first patrol ???
I have always had tonnage on first patrol with or without the commander mod

[P_Funk]

One thing I would like to see is a manual as detailed as the one for NYGM. The NYGM manual gives you everything you need to know before even playing the mod so that you aren't surprised in an unfair way by the new stuff. I especially like the description of the fatigue model. I'll say that the manual saves alot of unneccesary forum posting when making a transition. So a similar GW manual would be very welcomed. The Readme feels more like a car parts manual. It gives you some bare details about whats in there but it doesn't give you an explanation.

[irish1958]

I agree, it would be wonderful to have an extensive manual for GW. Question is who is to do it?
By the way P-Funk
Patton said "I don't want you to die for your country, I want the other poor bastard to die for their's"
irish1958

[P_Funk]

By the way P-Funk
Patton said "I don't want you to die for your country, I want the other poor bastard to die for their's"
irish1958

Indeed, Patton was a rye bugger. And by the way my grandpa met Patton and mouthed off to him.:rock: He was part of a group Canadian lads demoing our 17 pounder guns that we had affixed to Sherman bodies. Couldn't turn the turret but these were the tanks he used to win at the Ardennes. And me granpappy was there to show them off. And another thing my grandpa told me: War is BS. No line of propoganda means anything. Death is death. Period. "Whatever you do, don't join the army"

[IronOutlaw]

Thanks yet again Irish 1958!!!

I wasn't sure if I would need to generate a nearby location for a patrol through SH 3 Cmdr or not, or just make it the first leg of a proper patrol! You have cleared that point up for me. It is such a good idea, then again, the simple solutions so often are.

The Manual is a great idea. Hope it can happen. I am creating a "Commander's Manual" for the group I belong to, with details on making up KTB's, FTB's, Shooting Forms, Email protocols within the group, Enigma for those who wish to use it, etc, etc, so if I can help, let me know.

I also like the idea of leaving before 1 Sep 39. Several boats left port on 19 August, straight after the "Reunion" aboard the "Lecht."

And I still want Nav Lights!!!!! Pleeeeeease!!! I even offered to help put the manual together! (Shouldn't have said that, should I!) It would be much easier following the escort out of harbour if they had lights on, even just a stern light.

Another point about lights, many neutrals had lights ablaze at night identifying their nationality.

[bigboywooly]

Another point about lights, many neutrals had lights ablaze at night identifying their nationality.

Have a look at these

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=94962

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=95634&highlight=Coastal+merchant

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=95419

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=95283

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=94417

Now you can have neutrals with lights

[IronOutlaw]

Thanks bigboywooly!

Will GW cope with those ships okay?

I would still like to see all merchants, warships and U-boats lit up at least before the evening of 3 Sep, except for Polish ones in the East naturally, particularly in harbour.

[bigboywooly]

Thanks bigboywooly!

Will GW cope with those ships okay?

I would still like to see all merchants, warships and U-boats lit up at least before the evening of 3 Sep, except for Polish ones in the East naturally, particularly in harbour.

Well you can have those merchants lit up before the 3rd sept by using the methods I described in the C2 thread but adding the countries I didnt do
Yes works great in GW thats what I am using anyway
As for ALL lit up well Anvart can only do 1 at a time and its not easy - I am just gratefull for the ones he has done

On top of the changes I made to ships in the Roster file ( again see C2 thread ) I also had to go thru SCR and change the ships there also - time consuming but necessary
ie; if it says say

Name=US C2 Cargo#2
Class=KLS
Type=102
Origin=American
Side=0

Then this will need to be changed to

Name=US C2 Cargo#2
Class=LLS
Type=102
Origin=American
Side=0

As side=0 means they were neutral at that time

If you made the changes in the roster

Pain I know but maybe the next release of GW will inculde these lit ships

Hint Hint :up:

[Sailor Steve]

One thing I would like to see is a manual as detailed as the one for NYGM. The NYGM manual gives you everything you need to know before even playing the mod so that you aren't surprised in an unfair way by the new stuff. I especially like the description of the fatigue model. I'll say that the manual saves alot of unneccesary forum posting when making a transition. So a similar GW manual would be very welcomed. The Readme feels more like a car parts manual. It gives you some bare details about whats in there but it doesn't give you an explanation.
I completely disagree; I think the NYGM manual is woefully under-detailed. The RUB readme not only told what changes were made but also exactly which files were changed for each mod. I like to pick and choose what parts I use, and it's very very hard to do that with NYGM (and GW, to be honest).

I wish the NYGM manual was as detailed as RUB's was. As it is it's practically useless in my book, except to boast about what a wonderful job they did. Let me be clear, they did do a wonderful job, and boasting is fine; I just think the manual is useless (but I said that already).

[Safe-Keeper]

It's a lot to ask, but if you made some sort of installer which let you custom-tailor things a little more, I'd be sure to appreciate it. There are the "optional mods", and the alternative "mine-field-free map" and "German radio messages" files, but they just scratch the surface.

If you could have an eventual installer list the major changes and give you a check-box for each one. Like:

[ X ] 8 km visibility
[ X ] 16 km visibility
[ X ] Longer re-loading times.
[ X ] Mine fields
And so on.

And so on. It'd be a Heck of a lot of work, but it'd be really, really helpful.

[mr chris]

I know this a pretty bone qustion and most likely ask in the wrong thread.
But i need to know how to check what frame rate i have while playing.
thanks for any help.

[zzsteven]

I know this a pretty bone qustion and most likely ask in the wrong thread.
But i need to know how to check what frame rate i have while playing.
thanks for any help.

Ctrl+F8

zz

[Txema]

One thing I would like to see is a manual as detailed as the one for NYGM. The NYGM manual gives you everything you need to know before even playing the mod so that you aren't surprised in an unfair way by the new stuff. I especially like the description of the fatigue model. I'll say that the manual saves alot of unneccesary forum posting when making a transition. So a similar GW manual would be very welcomed. The Readme feels more like a car parts manual. It gives you some bare details about whats in there but it doesn't give you an explanation.


I fully agree with P_Funk. I would love to have this kind of manual also in GW !!! A manual of the kind of the one in NYGM is what I need to really enjoy a mod. It tells you how the things work, why they have been changed and the logic underlaying the new game mechanics. This kind of manual improves the playing experience enormeously for me !!!

Sailor Steve: Please, take into account that NYGM and GW are designed as "all in one" mods... They are not designed (in principle) to be merged with other ton of mods, and therefore what you are asking for is less relevant in these mods... Just IMHO...

Txema

[corvette k225]

lets hope we can get this one from Subsim also for $20.00 this also helps the website out.:D :D On DVD or CD

[mr chris]

Thanks zzsteven:up:
Happy hunting:arrgh!:

[mr chris]

Am on my second patrol using GW mod with sh3 comander and sh3 gen.
I came across a single merchant of the coast of the UK and desided to take the little scamp out with the deck gun. Closed to a good range and started to open fire by putting one across they bow. Then went to switch to the waterline and some AP rounds, only to find out that the game would not let me chose AP rounds. It took ages to sink the ship with HE rounds. Do i have to load out my sub with AP rounds at the beging of a mission or is this just a glitch with my game?
Any help welcome.:arrgh!:

[Sailor Steve]

Grey Wolves changes the loadout to be more historical. Though there is some evidence both ways, best evidence so far indicates that u-boats carried neither AP or Star Shells.

To change it back, look in Data/Cfg/Basic. Down near the bottom, right after all the 'Coning (sic) Tower' entries you'll find the listings for deck gun loadouts.

It will say something like:
8.8cm:
AP 0;40
HE 220;160
SS 20;40

I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but the ones before the semicolon are the numbers in use now and the ones after are the original game numbers. Just change it so the only numbers showing are the ones after, have no semicolon at all and you'll be right back where you started.

[mr chris]

Thanks Salior Steve, think i will keep it the way it is, if it was the way it was in the war.:yep: Thanks for the info if i do desided in the long run to change it back though.
Happy Hunting:arrgh!:

[IronOutlaw]

Bigboywooly!

One more question, when you return to port after following the escort out and coming straight back again, am I correct in assuming that you hit <Esc> then <Save and Exit>?

[irish1958]

outlaw of hard metal
Yes

[^SG^]

A short size question: will the new version be an update of 1.1a or a completely new install package?

Thanks.

[Dillinger022]

I hope that most if not all of the well-done and stable aircrafts and ship models that have been released since Grey Wolves 1.0 by a host of talented modders will be included in the Grey Wolves Expansion. Models like the Hood Battlecruiser, the Roma Battleship, ships from the upcoming Merchant Fleet Mod, etc.

I also hope that numerous historical naval operations will be scripted in the campaign.

Looking forward to the next version of GW.

Regards

[Spike]

The only problem I have w/this mod is the ships sinkings,put 6 torps in a T3 tanker and still did not sink,Most of the ships hit take too long to sink or don't sink at all;and smaller ships sould sink w/ one torp like the the hunts and corvetts take a hit and keep moving,this needs looking at as it is a problem w/ this mod.I like this mod very much,but I not the only one who has seen this in game.

[bigboywooly]

The only problem I have w/this mod is the ships sinkings,put 6 torps in a T3 tanker and still did not sink,Most of the ships hit take too long to sink or don't sink at all;and smaller ships sould sink w/ one torp like the the hunts and corvetts take a hit and keep moving,this needs looking at as it is a problem w/ this mod.I like this mod very much,but I not the only one who has seen this in game.

The ships take time to sink because the GW mod contains the old NYGM damage model in which ship sink slowly by flooding as compartments fill
Aim for different areas of the ship so flooding occurs quicker and dont be in too much of a hurry
In the upcoming GWX release that damage model will be changed for a more balanced new GW model :up:

[VonHelsching]

The only problem I have w/this mod is the ships sinkings,put 6 torps in a T3 tanker and still did not sink,Most of the ships hit take too long to sink or don't sink at all;and smaller ships sould sink w/ one torp like the the hunts and corvetts take a hit and keep moving,this needs looking at as it is a problem w/ this mod.I like this mod very much,but I not the only one who has seen this in game.

This aspect of the game (among others) is under revision and heavy development by the GW Dev team.

[rasmus1896]

oh, i would like to have new ships right now! When will this mod going to be releasted?


Sorry for my english (its not my mothers tongue)

[Kpt. Lehmann]

TO ALL: Please do not ask, or pressure GW mod team members about release dates for the major build. There is a date set... but it must remain flexible enough to meet the needs of the GW team and the mass of material we are addressing. For now, go sink some ships and enjoy yourselves.

To GW fans, whether you have realized it or not... we have been actively listening to you. Thanks for hanging in there with us and all the words of support.

We have only showed you the tip of the iceberg!

Please note in the meantime:
"Unofficial" non- GW endorsed add-ons for The Grey Wolves Supermod are not supported by the GW development team and their use is NOT RECOMMENDED for the inexperienced or casual user. The Grey Wolves development team cannot be held responsible for any adverse effects caused by the subsequent modification of any files.

This is not something we say just to make people angry. We are often asked for help with problems that are NOT caused by the GW mod itself. The more SH3 is modded... the more files become interlocked.

If you place another large mod package on top of GW... you are breaking GW in numerous possible ways. We can not be expected to help you with this.

[kapitanfred]

The only problem I have w/this mod is the ships sinkings,put 6 torps in a T3 tanker and still did not sink,Most of the ships hit take too long to sink or don't sink at all;and smaller ships sould sink w/ one torp like the the hunts and corvetts take a hit and keep moving,this needs looking at as it is a problem w/ this mod.I like this mod very much,but I not the only one who has seen this in game.

The ships take time to sink because the GW mod contains the old NYGM damage model in which ship sink slowly by flooding as compartments fill
Aim for different areas of the ship so flooding occurs quicker and dont be in too much of a hurry
In the upcoming GWX release that damage model will be changed for a more balanced new GW model :up:

Spot on bbw. It takes only 3 max to send a big fella to Davy Jones's Locker. I use multiple torp settings with 3 degree spacing. Works wonders when you target specific locations of boats. Oh!! and they do blow up big time if you target the right spot :lol:

http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/4708/sh3img11820061946va9.jpg

[HEMISENT]

The only problem I have w/this mod is the ships sinkings,put 6 torps in a T3 tanker and still did not sink,Most of the ships hit take too long to sink or don't sink at all;and smaller ships sould sink w/ one torp like the the hunts and corvetts take a hit and keep moving,this needs looking at as it is a problem w/ this mod.I like this mod very much,but I not the only one who has seen this in game.

This aspect of the game (among others) is under revision and heavy development by the GW Dev team.

Well, just throwing my two cents into the mix I love the longer sinking times of NYGM. It now means that the player has to actually think about where to place a shot. This topic has been discussed to death here and on the NYGM posts. If it were up to me I wouldn't change a thing about this aspect of GW.
I guess this falls under the heading of "Different strokes for different folks"

[Safe-Keeper]

As far as I get it, what they're revising is that small ships take a whole barrage of torpedoes to sink (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=96174), while destroyers go down after a single hit. The rest is a matter of taste.

Of course, they're doing the whole thing from the bottom-up, but I think the longer sinking times and how you have to spread out torpedo hits will remain the same.

[jaxa]

I hope next GW version will has more balanced sinking times :up:

[Webchessie]

I've really enjoyed the GW mod over the last months. The mods have added so much to this game. Thanks to all that has worked (and still working) so hard for us!

Like many others, it's hard to wait for the next major update, but I still have lots of ships to sink to keep me occupied!:up:

Got to go, I have a mission to complete . . .

[Deep Six]

Well I for one can wait......As an avid GW mod user I'm just oozing enthusiasm for the next release. If its anywhere as good as GW1.1a then were in for a long and fruitful, if not very eventful career..:up: :up:

As to the "How many torps to sink a ship"...Well I have put three into a small coastal tanker to split her into, but then on the flip side, I went a'hunting inside Hartlepool harbour only last night, after taking out a large Merchant with 3 torps and finishing a small coastal with two, Was down to my LAST torp when out of the fog I spied a C2 berthed dockside......Hmmmmm??? One torp not looking good. I aimed just aft of the focsle deck right on the boiler room Magnetic pistol set to
6m (She was riding high in the water)......BOOM.....and she split into..:smug:
Nice feeling when it all comes together, even so SHE was a sitting duck of a target.

Finished my patrol with 19K of tonnage....


Deep Six

[catar M]

I hope next GW version will has more balanced sinking times :up:amen to that

[Safe-Keeper]

One little suggestion.

Might it be an idea to add a safety measure to diving, surfacing, and crash-diving the way it was added to firing torpedoes?

Ctrl+S: Surface.
Ctrl+D: Dive.
Ctrl+C: Crash dive.

Have it be an option you can enable or disable at will in that install menu with the check-boxes.

Keeps you from accidentally going to the surface when 4 destroyers hunt you in Scapa Flow:p.

[Wulfmann]

I am not sure what the problem is on what most ask about. Sinking times.
This is a big improvement (for reality). The original instant vaporized ship that if the U-Boat torpedoed at 300 meters while doing flank would not be in the way is perplexing.
This is a march forward and I certainly hope GW and NYGM ignore the gamer request and continue to develop this along realistic lines.
I would personally like to see no confirmation at all for anything. Let the Kaleun post what he claims in the Log book and when he returns makes his claims and 2 missions later has some, not all confirmed.
If I have one complaint about my motivation as a Kaleun it is tonnage lines. That is I must sink 10K to get a IC2nd so I might take risk I otherwise might not in real life.
No confirmation and an hour for a tanker to go down would change my attitude considerably on how I act..
I believe TGW team and NYGM desire reality Uber Alles but the request of gamers may weigh in.
Resist.
Follow history, please.
Wulfmann

[Kpt. Lehmann]

@ Wulfmann...

We we certainly are not building an arcade version of the damage models.

[jaxa]

Sinking times in GW 1.1a, based on earlier version of NYGM, are the most important problem in GW. I hope next version will have slightly changed sinking times, near to real.
I've just read book by Marek Krzyształowicz "U-Boot VII vol.1", AJ-Press 2006. At 44-45 pages I've found this:
"The performance of contact-fuse torpedoes is reflected by the following table:

1. With 1 hit:
210 ships sunk (40,3 %), 83 ships damaged (15,9 %);
2. With 2 hits:
149 ships sunk (29,9 %), 29 ships damaged (5,7 %);
3. With 3 hits:
39 ships sunk (7,4 %), 4 ships damaged (0,6 %);
4. With 4 hits:
6 ships sunk (1 %), 1 damaged (0,2 %)

Total 404 ships sunk (77,6 %) and 117 damaged (22,4 %).
In total 404 ships had been sunk with 806 torpedoes used, which gives two torpedoes per sunken ship. The magnetic-fuse torpedo brought this ratio down to one torpedo per ship."

What do you think about this?

[MaxenThor]

I have mentioned this before but I hope that the TGW Development Team would discard the use of Renown for scoring and consider Tonnage instead. At the very least this is more historical. Thanks.

[Wulfmann]

I personally have done away with renown meaning anything in my SH3. I made everything super cheap to buy (Except homing torpedoes which I made way too expensive as they were not plentiful).
The only thing that matters for mine is tonnage which gets medals which increases crew efficiency. I would change that but something needs to drive the desire for tonnage which was a real goal.

L, I know you would not go arcade. I would like it even more difficult as would replicate reality. Have you looked into confirmed kills being made claims in which later confirmation could dispute (unfairly which happened)?

Wulfmann

[fredbass]

I really don't see where I'm using that many more torpodoes to sink ships with the latest GW, but that's just my experience. Of course I can see it being a little aggravating when you have a smaller boat, if that's the case.

As far as sinking goes, well, I really don't think it's necessary to achieve more realism by setting realistic sinking times. It just doesn't add anything positive for me, but on the other hand, we do have time compression at our fingertips don't we. :know: So I guess it's not a major deal to me, but oh well.

I understand the desire to add things that make the game more challenging, but I'm just one of those people who don't necessarily want too much realism or it can ruin the fun for me. And I know you can't please everybody no matter what you do.

Thanks for the great mod. :up:

[kapitanfred]

Yes, I would like to see the renown bit disappear all together. Since when did a Kaleun pay for upgrades and lose his ranking because of it :-? The promotion should really be based on patrol results and not on the value of the renown.

There should also be an option to change boats when available but not have to sacrifice renown for it and again get demoted because of the renown cost.

That's my view

[Dowly]

Yes, I would like to see the renown bit disappear all together. Since when did a Kaleun pay for upgrades and lose his ranking because of it :-? The promotion should really be based on patrol results and not on the value of the renown.

There should also be an option to change boats when available but not have to sacrifice renown for it and again get demoted because of the renown cost.

That's my view

The renown works well IMO, just the demotion part is stupid. The more ships you sink, the better 'soldier' you are in the eyes of your commanders. And the better soldier you are, the better equipment you have at your disposal.

[GT182]

I agree with Wulfmann, tonnage is the way to go, Do away with renoun as Kaptain Fred and him say. When equipement becomes available it's the Kaptain's choice whether he wants it or not. They were never made to pay for their equipement. If you were good enough to sink ships, then you got the equipement you needed. If not, then you were history. Late in the war when Germany was desparate for oil and equipenent, then you won't see or get what you need. Or something to that effect.

So to make the sim more real, if you sink a neutral ship in a patrol then you get demoted. If you really screw up and sink more than one neutral or your targets don't sink... it's off to the Russian Front after a certain build up of negative renoun. That's about the only thing that would work in SHIII. You could have a nice long career or a short one followed by increasing cold and frostbite. ;)

[Safe-Keeper]

So in essence, completing a mission yields 0 renown, while sinking a ship yields more renown than before (to compensate)? I could live with that, although it'd probably reduce my life-span due to increased risks:p.

One thing I've been considering is making duplicate ships with cargo that are heavier (more tonnage) and sit lower in the water. You know, like there are two identical US bombers, one which has one skin and one which has another?

Could there not be, say, two T-3 tankers, one which is "loaded" and sits lower in the water, and one which is empty and higher?

[SkvyWvr]

So in essence, completing a mission yields 0 renown, while sinking a ship yields more renown than before (to compensate)? I could live with that, although it'd probably reduce my life-span due to increased risks:p.

One thing I've been considering is making duplicate ships with cargo that are heavier (more tonnage) and sit lower in the water. You know, like there are two identical US bombers, one which has one skin and one which has another?

Could there not be, say, two T-3 tankers, one which is "loaded" and sits lower in the water, and one which is empty and higher?

I don't believe in RL the cargo weight was added to the tonnage sunk. There was no way to know how heavy a ship's load was. I think the tonnage was based on the ship's listed gross tonnage. This is the way the US Navy's recognition books list vessels..

[Deimos01]

So in essence, completing a mission yields 0 renown, while sinking a ship yields more renown than before (to compensate)? I could live with that, although it'd probably reduce my life-span due to increased risks:p.

One thing I've been considering is making duplicate ships with cargo that are heavier (more tonnage) and sit lower in the water. You know, like there are two identical US bombers, one which has one skin and one which has another?

Could there not be, say, two T-3 tankers, one which is "loaded" and sits lower in the water, and one which is empty and higher?

I don't believe in RL the cargo weight was added to the tonnage sunk. There was no way to know how heavy a ship's load was. I think the tonnage was based on the ship's listed gross tonnage. This is the way the US Navy's recognition books list vessels..

Aye. Dont think they had a chance to weigh the ships before they sunk em.

"Excuse me chaps, Im sorry to be a bother. But I wonder if you wouldnt mind handing down you cargo manifest? See, BDU has become a real stickler about our tonnage reports and I want to make sure I have this one right before I blow you ship from under you. Ahh, thanks mate.":lol:

[SkvyWvr]

Aye. Dont think they had a chance to weigh the ships before they sunk em.
"Excuse me chaps, Im sorry to be a bother. But I wonder if you wouldnt mind handing down you cargo manifest? See, BDU has become a real stickler about our tonnage reports and I want to make sure I have this one right before I blow you ship from under you. Ahh, thanks mate.":lol:

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[U-snafu]

Any chance of having a few historic operations and naval battles in the new edition?----sorry if this has been asked before.

[Laffertytig]

i personally prefer maximum realism but obviously there r a lot of people who dont. would it be to much hassle to give people the option of for example realistic sink time etc?

[Kpt. Lehmann]

You guys are assuming too many things. :cool: However, you can assume that our modding is based on well-researched data... and in general... a consensus reached by intelligent GW dev team members in regards to our decision making process. Though on occasion an arbitrary decision must be made by me... this has rarely been required. I have not had to make any such decisions concerning "realism content" in GWX as far as I recall.

We are also guided by the limitations of the SH3 engine and system requirements.

Everyone on this planet is going to adopt different interpretations of real-life data and form their opinion of how things should be modded based on the same. The GW Dev team is no different.

Since the GW 1.0 build... our available manpower and available pool of knowledge on how to implement changes within the SH3 files has more than quadrupled and in some cases... by enormous leaps and bounds. This will naturally be reflected in GWX... and by the timeframe we have chosen. (which will remain in-house)

You must understand though, that no matter what we do... the complainers and rivet counters will air their opinion. The quibling will naturally continue. We are quite aware of this and expect it.

As always if you don't like what you see... feel free to delete it.

As far as the direction we have taken and the things we have done... my only regret is that I cannot pay my team beyond the credits page. They have given so much and asked for so little. I am simply stunned when I sit back in my chair a few minutes here and there to contemplate the totality of what we are building.

I'll not say anymore because words don't exist to describe what I feel.

[Enchavado]

Hi

Regarding the damage mod I can agree with the realism trend but there are some things too much for me, i.e. Do you think this is going to be toed to port?

http://venenews.iespana.es/RC%2030%20min%20OS.JPG

As you can see she has 45 Minutes since the last impact and took another 8 minutes more to sink when I almost decide to leave from there.

I support the idea of a claim and after being rewarded or not but, again, some thing like this is anoying.

Other complain with that damned mod is thet it is going ok until you reach the board then is capable yo expend days before going down ( I saw this last patrol, my last 3 torps on a ship, water over half the aft, and she runs for 120 hundred meters in 2 days, whith me seeing at least for a change in the weather that permits me sank her with ma deck gun, at last left the SCI and lost that toonage.)

In the rest be sure you made e real outstanding work witch I'm sure everybody apreciate.

Keep up the good work and happy hunting.

[Wulfmann]

KL, you have asked for suggestions, I believe?

We all wait with baited breath for GWX.

Back to renown stuff. For those that wosh to edit the files here is an example
Below are some items (Coatings) from the Basic file in cfg folder.
Note what I suggest you change, that is the amount one pays for those items
You can go through the entire file and reduce everything by 90%

[SPECIAL0]; anti sonar coatings
DaysSpent=1
Nb=2
NameIdx0=1303
Year0=1941
Month0=8
NbSub0=4
Sub00=0
Sub01=1
Sub02=2
Sub03=3
Renown0=600 (Change this to 60)
Name0=Alberich

NameIdx1=1304
Year1=1944
Month1=2
NbSub1=4
Sub10=0
Sub11=1
Sub12=2
Sub12=3
Renown1=500 (Change this to 50)
Name1=AlberichImproved

[SPECIAL1]; anti radar coatings
DaysSpent=1
Nb=1
NameIdx0=1305
Year0=1944
Month0=1
NbSub0=4
Sub00=0
Sub01=1
Sub02=2
Sub03=3
Renown0=1000 (Change this to 100)
Name0=Tarnmatte


This is the area for medal rewards based on tonnage. You can change this so your whole crew gets super ranks in no time but since this decides how your crew gains experience you may want to consider a reasonable reward to advance that mimics reality

[MEDALS_CREW]
DecreaseFatigueMax=0.1
IncreaseMoraleMin=0.1
RenownStep=100; RENOWN, u-boat badge
SunkInPatrol=1000; TONNAGE, front clasp
RenownStep2ndClass=10000; TONNAGE, IC 2nd
SunkInPatrol1stClass=20000; TONNAGE, IC 1st
SunkInPatrolGerman=30000; TONNAGE, GC
SunkInPatrolKnights=50000; TONNAGE, KC
HpStep=5
HpStep1stClass=10
Experience=1.25
StepForMorale=0
StepForFatigue=0


Wulfmann

[Kpt. Lehmann]

KL, you have asked for suggestions, I believe?

We all wait with baited breath for GWX.

Back to renown stuff. For those that wosh to edit the files here is an example
Below are some items (Coatings) from the Basic file in cfg folder.
Note what I suggest you change, that is the amount one pays for those items
You can go through the entire file and reduce everything by 90%

[SPECIAL0]; anti sonar coatings
DaysSpent=1
Nb=2
NameIdx0=1303
Year0=1941
Month0=8
NbSub0=4
Sub00=0
Sub01=1
Sub02=2
Sub03=3
Renown0=600 (Change this to 60)
Name0=Alberich

NameIdx1=1304
Year1=1944
Month1=2
NbSub1=4
Sub10=0
Sub11=1
Sub12=2
Sub12=3
Renown1=500 (Change this to 50)
Name1=AlberichImproved

[SPECIAL1]; anti radar coatings
DaysSpent=1
Nb=1
NameIdx0=1305
Year0=1944
Month0=1
NbSub0=4
Sub00=0
Sub01=1
Sub02=2
Sub03=3
Renown0=1000 (Change this to 100)
Name0=Tarnmatte


This is the area for medal rewards based on tonnage. You can change this so your whole crew gets super ranks in no time but since this decides how your crew gains experience you may want to consider a reasonable reward to advance that mimics reality

[MEDALS_CREW]
DecreaseFatigueMax=0.1
IncreaseMoraleMin=0.1
RenownStep=100; RENOWN, u-boat badge
SunkInPatrol=1000; TONNAGE, front clasp
RenownStep2ndClass=10000; TONNAGE, IC 2nd
SunkInPatrol1stClass=20000; TONNAGE, IC 1st
SunkInPatrolGerman=30000; TONNAGE, GC
SunkInPatrolKnights=50000; TONNAGE, KC
HpStep=5
HpStep1stClass=10
Experience=1.25
StepForMorale=0
StepForFatigue=0


Wulfmann

You are correct, Wulfmann. We did ask for suggestions and/or constructive criticism. You have aired your thoughts and opinions. Thank you.

I would appreciate it that if you must be sarcastic or condescending... that you choose to do so on some other thread and allow others to have their say here as well without it becoming a platform that suits your personal interests.

[Dowly]

@Enchavado

There will be totally new damage model for GWX, I cant say much about it as I have tested it only for a few minutes (Even if I would have tested it more, I wouldn´t say anything :D). The damage model of TGW1.1 is one of the earlier versions that NYGM team did. :up:

[GT182]

Safe-Keeper, I've been told it's not possible in SHIII. That's from ones that know more than I and posted it quite awhile ago. Someone tried and found out it's a no go. I believe it's because it's hardcoded in the sim. Besides, lower riding ship's draft would need to be changed in the Recognition manual so you could use the magnetic pistol.

[Wulfmann]

KL said "I would appreciate it that if you must be sarcastic or condescending... that you choose to do so on some other thread and allow others to have their say here as well without it becoming a platform that suits your personal interests.

:hmm: Since I was not being sarcastic or condescending please refer to what you are complaining about so I have a clue as to what you are talking about.:down:


Wulfmann

[shegeek72]

Harbour traphic is wonderful, but too much units eats my FPS, i have a PIV 3.4 Ghz, an ATI X800 XT Platinum Edition 256 Mb, and 3 GB RAM memory, lot of windows services and process killed and it is normal my FPS drop down to 7 FPS at ports.
Sounds low for a puter of that caliber. I have an AMD 3000+, nVidia 6600 GT, 2 gig RAM and I get 20s in a high-traffic harbor.

Though you may already know about them, there are utilities for looking at running processes / programs that don't display with ctrl-alt-del:

Process explorer (though who knows what'll happen to it, and the rest of sysinternals SW, since they were bought my M$)
http://www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/ProcessExplorer.html
Also recommended: filemon & diskmon

End it All
http://www.docsdownloads.com/enditall-1.htm
This great, little program also displays running processes / programs and allows closing of programs that are locked-up. I used it to close SH3 (before GW) when the save & exit F.U.

Might also want to take a look at: http://users4.ev1.net/~taragem/winxptips.htm (http://users4.ev1.net/%7Etaragem/winxptips.htm)
Some XP tweaks to increase performance, like turning off indexing and shutting off XP eye candy.

I increased my deck gun and AAA power. I think so a line of holes in the waterline must be enought to sink any ships, disregarding how big it was.
How did you do this? I pelted a motionless cargo ship with the deck gun that'd been hit with two torps until I was out of rounds and the damn thing didn't sink. Had to stick another torp in it to take it out of its misery. Thx.
--
http://users4.ev1.net/%7Etaragem/moon_sub3.jpg

[kiwi_2005]

I use a program called Whats running,

http://www.whatsrunning.net/whatsrunning/main.aspx

______________________

:I increased my deck gun and AAA power. I think so a line of holes in the waterline must be enought to sink any ships, disregarding how big it was.
How did you do this? I pelted a motionless cargo ship with the deck gun that'd been hit with two torps until I was out of rounds and the damn thing didn't sink. Had to stick another torp in it to take it out of its misery. Thx.

He probably is using - SH3 Mini Tweaker, by timetraveller. Enables you to tweak just about everything in the game, i once had my uboat doing 55knots on the surface just for the fun of it but got bored very quick - you also become pretty elite as not even escorts can catch up to you :D. With the tweaker you can make changes to your gun/AA. Go to the mods sticky update link on this forum to get it.

[Enchavado]

@ Dowly I know they are working in a new model is only that I espect if blast some shells in a tanker she must blow up same with a torp, only because of the cargo, same thing must hapen with an ammo carrier, also are remarking the old deficiencies to make a better mod.

Believe me I only want to add a sand grain to your amazing work.

Good hunting

[Dowly]

@ Dowly I know they are working in a new model is only that I espect if blast some shells in a tanker she must blow up same with a torp, only because of the cargo, same thing must hapen with an ammo carrier, also are remarking the old deficiencies to make a better mod.

Believe me I only want to add a sand grain to your amazing work.

Good hunting

Yea, I know what you mean. These are the things that are on the thin line between realism and gameplay. Tanker that blows up easily will give you thousands of tons per patrol resulting in a unrealistic patrol tonnages. I cant say anything about the new DM, as I´m sure alot of things will change.

[kiwi_2005]

Petrol Tankers should be a 1 torpedo hit, then a huge explosion and shes a goner.
Other tankers that might carry oil should be harder to sink, which they are in the GW, but so far i think all tankers whether oil or petrol are the same.

Going by Das Boot book, :arrgh!: UA find a life raft with dead sailors clinging to it half eaten and always there eyes missing from the seagulls, captain says they were from a oil tanker no doubt, if she was a petrol tanker there would be no survivors one hit and boom shes gone.

Are there one hit petrol tankers in GW? Never had the chance to find out yet.

[shegeek72]

I use a program called Whats running,

http://www.whatsrunning.net/whatsrunning/main.aspx


Something else is to close / disable anti-virus / firewall, unless you're playin' online! :o
--
http://users4.ev1.net/%7Etaragem/moon_sub3.jpg

[kiwi_2005]

I use a program called Whats running,

http://www.whatsrunning.net/whatsrunning/main.aspx


Something else is to close / disable anti-virus / firewall, unless you're playin' online! :o
--
http://users4.ev1.net/%7Etaragem/moon_sub3.jpg

Did you mean the above for someone else? I dont have a problem with game lagging. And i have anti virus and Zonealarm running in the background, only cos my internet is running 24/7

[shegeek72]

Something else is to close / disable anti-virus / firewall, unless you're playin' online! :o

Did you mean the above for someone else? I dont have a problem with game lagging. And i have anti virus and Zonealarm running in the background, only cos my internet is running 24/7
Yes, it was for the person with the high-octane puter who was only getting 7 FPS in high-traffic harbors. I'd like to add heat can also reduce processor efficiency.
--
http://users4.ev1.net/%7Etaragem/moon_sub3.jpg

[kapitanfred]

I have AMD 2600+ 512 RAM and GEForce 6200 256Mb card and have minimal lag in busy harbours:)

[enaceo]

Petrol Tankers should be a 1 torpedo hit, then a huge explosion and shes a goner.
Other tankers that might carry oil should be harder to sink, which they are in the GW, but so far i think all tankers whether oil or petrol are the same.

Going by Das Boot book, :arrgh!: UA find a life raft with dead sailors clinging to it half eaten and always there eyes missing from the seagulls, captain says they were from a oil tanker no doubt, if she was a petrol tanker there would be no survivors one hit and boom shes gone.

Are there one hit petrol tankers in GW? Never had the chance to find out yet.


Yes there are 1-hit-kill tankers in GW.Happened to me just a day ago .There were 2 tanks in port.Hit them ...hmmm...I think at just the middle of the ship with magnetics ,but I thought they were impact so t I had set them to about 3 meters depth.The torpedoes hit them where I aimed(manual TDC,but the ships were not moving so it wasn't that hard:D).There was a small fire,a small boom,and a really big BANG and down they went...

[kiwi_2005]

Petrol Tankers should be a 1 torpedo hit, then a huge explosion and shes a goner.
Other tankers that might carry oil should be harder to sink, which they are in the GW, but so far i think all tankers whether oil or petrol are the same.

Going by Das Boot book, :arrgh!: UA find a life raft with dead sailors clinging to it half eaten and always there eyes missing from the seagulls, captain says they were from a oil tanker no doubt, if she was a petrol tanker there would be no survivors one hit and boom shes gone.

Are there one hit petrol tankers in GW? Never had the chance to find out yet.

Yes there are 1-hit-kill tankers in GW.Happened to me just a day ago .There were 2 tanks in port.Hit them ...hmmm...I think at just the middle of the ship with magnetics ,but I thought they were impact so t I had set them to about 3 meters depth.The torpedoes hit them where I aimed(manual TDC,but the ships were not moving so it wasn't that hard:D).There was a small fire,a small boom,and a really big BANG and down they went...

:up:Thats good to know, im off to hunt:D

[SkvyWvr]

Man...this tread is all over the map:doh:

[QB]

I've just started playing SH111 again with the Grey Wolves mod. Great work and thanks for the effort.

Could you incorporate into the next release, the excellent Lighted Merchant Neutral ships by Anvart?

[THE_MASK]

Any new info on the next GW release please .Pretty please .;) Pretty please with sugar on top .

[Cdre Gibs]

Umm, its bigger than Ben Hur! :lol:

[THE_MASK]

:up:great

[Myxale]

Umm, its bigger than Ben Hur! :lol:

:rotfl:

[supposedtobeworking]

Ok then I am really pshyched at this coming release.....and here is my suggestion/request/demand....

I have of course my list of must have additions and tweaks, which I will restrain, however here is one that I absolutely cannot live without and I don't see how anyone performing manual TDC could do without either...and it is not in the current GW1.1a:

The Slideout TDC MODS for Attack Peri and UZO----Oh man this changed my life!! Tell me how does anyone doing manual TDC get along without it??? doing all of the stupid switching between 'F3' and 'F6' over and over..esp for quick emergency shots when in a pinch... now the reason I am compelled to mention this here and beg the GW team to include it in the next release is because it is rather tedious to install....not saying I wouldn't do it again, but boy would it be nice to have it in there already, and really is there anyone out there who uses manual TDC who does not use this indespensable mod?! speak now or forever hold your peace.

[Cdre Gibs]

The problem with thing's like that is not every 1 like manual targeting. So the requirement for such an addition is rather low. However if a GW approved addon came out for the above, then that would be better so as to cater for those that do like Manual Targeting.

GW approved basicaly means that 1 of the GW Mod team would check the addon installed into GW and make sure there are no conflicts or issues and give it the Thumbs up.

[Jmack]

i have a question ....

will the new GW contain all others before ?

cause since i installed latest one my game just quits on me ... and goes back to desktop

then again im not really shure if its GW cause i also installed SH3 commander , but i tried diferent combinations with the graphics settings and same happens

any ideas ?

[irish1958]

I agree with STBW; since it is a slide out, the mod won't disturb anyone who doesn't want to use it as it won't appear on their screens unless they pull it down.
As their ease of the game improves, I suspect a lot more people will want to progress to manual targeting. Screwing around with the menu 1064 file is difficult for most people, so installing this mod is very difficult.
Jmack: did you do a fresh install of SHIII, patch it to 1.4b and then install GW 1.1a? SH3CMDR is a separate program which should have no effect on SHIII crashing. To be sure, start SHIII from the icon inside the ubisoft\SHIII folder. If that works delete and reinstall SH3CMDR. If you still have a problem, visit Jones thread on the release of CMDR 2.6. He will solve the problem as he still supports this mod.

[supposedtobeworking]

Yes, besides I thought that GW was geared towards more hardcore subsimmers anyway-- but, it is a slideout and will not be obtrusive in the peri view if not used as mentioned above, it also does not create any game play or graphics glitches/conflicts (once you get it installed right anyway), so for those who do not use manual tdc(which kind of takes a lot of the fun out of subsims i think), they wouldn't even know it was there... and yes the menu1024 file is tricky to edit for most, just because of the sheer number of checks and text wading you have to do to eliminate conflicts or double numbering--very tedious...it would be nice to have, since I assume more than a few people using GW are using manual TDC, and I think anyone who has used this mod (slideout TDC) will agree it is a must have, no question.

[Cdre Gibs]

I'm not saying you cant have it, nor am I saying its not needed (for those that use Manual targeting) but the thing is, we have had more D/L's of GW than there are ppl that use Subsim. Thats the entire Subsim community, not just those that partake of the SH3 forums. So with that in mind we must make GW for the broader user base, no! Thats why I said if a GW addon come out we are more than happy to check its compatability and if no issues are found give it the big ol thumbs up. Pls try to remember that the GW team has modified/tinkered a hell of a lot of files in SH3, somewhere in the order of over 4000 I believe (I may have that N° wrong BTW). Because of the volume and the work that entails sometimes not every thing that some ppl believe is a must may get added. The GW Mod Team is not above others of these forums in that we would not welcome such an addon. The only thing we would ask is that prior to it being released we would have the oppotunity to validate the addon so any issues can be sorted, so that when released we and the addon creator have minimal GW bug/GW broken posts to answer.

[supposedtobeworking]

Ok thats fine, if I do end up having to reinstall it manually for GWX then, by joe, I will do it because it would still be worth it(though it is a pain in the royal arse!). But, so this doesn't just sound like a soley personal request, I simply cannot imagine anyone using manual TDC, in their right mind, knowing about this mod and not using it...so I will continue my beg for this to be included in GWX...that being said I know beggars can't be choosers.....but here it goes anyways:

PPPPUUUUULLLLLLEEEEEEEAAAAASSSSSEEEEEE please please add theTDC slideout mod!!!!

Thanks.

[TarJak]

I don't suppose that there is any way to stop your hydrpohones and the AI ones from seeing through land and sea walls is there?

Lots more variation in the make up of convoys with non-stock ships would be nice too.

Other than that just keep up the great work.

[Laffertytig]

on the patrols ive done using GW ive found there are to many radio contacts which appear closeby and headin straight towards me, just like when the sim first came out. any way to make it a little more realistic?

[shegeek72]

The pencil marker in GW (with the distances that I haven't figured out how to use yet :roll:) appears to be slightly offset, so I have to move it slightly down to get the X in the right place on the map.

Using Grey Wolves and lovin' it! :|\\
--
http://users4.ev1.net/%7Etaragem/sh3_dark_gw3b.jpg (http://users4.ev1.net/%7Etaragem/sh3_dark_gw3b.jpg)

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Ok thats fine, if I do end up having to reinstall it manually for GWX then, by joe, I will do it because it would still be worth it(though it is a pain in the royal arse!). But, so this doesn't just sound like a soley personal request, I simply cannot imagine anyone using manual TDC, in their right mind, knowing about this mod and not using it...so I will continue my beg for this to be included in GWX...that being said I know beggars can't be choosers.....but here it goes anyways:

PPPPUUUUULLLLLLEEEEEEEAAAAASSSSSEEEEEE please please add theTDC slideout mod!!!!

Thanks.

I'll take a look at it. No promises though.

Can someone give me a DL link for the Slide-out TDC mod?

[Lord_Kitchener]

Can the trees be worked on possibly?......They look awful!.....also...they are placed in the Arctic regions. I'm thinking someone has already mentioned this? Oh...by the way...been lurking on here for years..don't post much..but just wanna say HI everybody..I love this forum and SH3!:dead:

[supposedtobeworking]

Sure -- a million thanks for your consideration, here is the link for the TDC Slideout mod:

http://rapidshare.de/files/13098065/TDC_Mod.zip.html

and here is the forum thread which discusses its use and user comments etc...

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=48526

--if there is an issue with how popular or unpopular this mod is, perhaps it could be included as an optional addon mod in the installation...

Can't wait for GWX, my gratitude for all of your hard work and saving SH3 from being just 'OK'!!

[KarlSteiner]

Hi Cpt.Lehmann,

can you change the position of the player more foward on deck?
So that we can see more of the ship-stern?


Thanks

Karl

[mikaelanderlund]

Ok thats fine, if I do end up having to reinstall it manually for GWX then, by joe, I will do it because it would still be worth it(though it is a pain in the royal arse!). But, so this doesn't just sound like a soley personal request, I simply cannot imagine anyone using manual TDC, in their right mind, knowing about this mod and not using it...so I will continue my beg for this to be included in GWX...that being said I know beggars can't be choosers.....but here it goes anyways:

PPPPUUUUULLLLLLEEEEEEEAAAAASSSSSEEEEEE please please add theTDC slideout mod!!!!

Thanks.

I'll take a look at it. No promises though.

Can someone give me a DL link for the Slide-out TDC mod?

Hi Kpt. Lehmann and supposedtobeworking,

I'm also using manual TDC but I don't like the slideout console and I don't think it's necessary to have it, however I'm using the bigger gauges for the TDC map (non-slideout) only and that's work great for manual TDC.

Mikael

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Small update...

I am happy to announce one of our upcoming realism enhancements.

Thanks to GWX dev team member Cdre Gibs... ALL fighter aircraft in GWX are now capable of dogfighting approriate opponents, and where appropriate will strafe the player's U-boat prior to bombing if such ordnance is carried by the respective plane.

This is one fix of many that will allow GWX to continue standing toe-to-toe with any "realism" mod.

[jaxa]

Very good news.
Kpt.Lehmann, are there any things you can't include in GWX, but you wanted?

[SteamWake]

Small update...

I am happy to announce one of our upcoming realism enhancements.

Thanks to GWX dev team member Cdre Gibs... ALL fighter aircraft in GWX are now capable of dogfighting approriate opponents, and where appropriate will strafe the player's U-boat prior to bombing if such ordnance is carried by the respective plane.

This is one fix of many that will allow GWX to continue standing toe-to-toe with any "realism" mod.

You guys are amazing ! Keep up the fantastic work !

[MothBalls]

Is it soup yet?

[kylania]

Is it soup yet?

You missed (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=97303), badly. :damn:

[Jimbuna]

Great news and congrats Cdre Gibs :up:

[iccalm]

Great news!

You talk about suggestions... will give the only one that jumps to mind.. may be better to describe it as a 'want'.

Damage Model: I know you are re-working this and have no idea what you intent to do with it, but I would like to see a large change over the NYGM model. While compartmentalized damage as they have implemented it does make torpedo usage much more in line with what I have read of Uboat warfare, waiting 10, 20, 30 hrs in the middle of the ocean watching a bobbing cork of a ship waiting for it to sink is rediculous and immersion killing.

They wanted to prevent "She's Going Down" happeneing somewhat instantly. I disagree with this philosophy. The Kaleun would have a pretty good idea right away if a ship was broken and count it as such. They would not sit on top of the conning tower taking bets "Is it gonna go?... isn't it?"

You may make a case for ships in RL taking a long time to sink. It is my opinion that a real commander would have taken his shots, seen if he had made critical damage (if you even have a chance to 'see' it) then leave marking it down as a kill. They would never just hang about... seeing if it will go down and waiting to see if thier radio is still intact! This is what I would like to see represented. Leave it up to the Kaleun if he wants to sunbathe on deck for 2 days as it sinks.

**Disclaimer: I am not bashing NYGM, I have never tried the mod. Just expressing a difference of opinion over their damage model.

I too would like significant change from the NYGM damage mod. Take Tankers for instance: Carriers of volatilr fluids so sensitive smoking is not allowed on board. Hard to imagine ANY Tanker surviving ONE torpedo impact.
Empty Tankers even more vulnerable (explosive vapors)
Double Hull Tankers: Unknown as far as I can determine during WW2.

[bigboywooly]

Great news!

You talk about suggestions... will give the only one that jumps to mind.. may be better to describe it as a 'want'.

Damage Model: I know you are re-working this and have no idea what you intent to do with it, but I would like to see a large change over the NYGM model. While compartmentalized damage as they have implemented it does make torpedo usage much more in line with what I have read of Uboat warfare, waiting 10, 20, 30 hrs in the middle of the ocean watching a bobbing cork of a ship waiting for it to sink is rediculous and immersion killing.

They wanted to prevent "She's Going Down" happeneing somewhat instantly. I disagree with this philosophy. The Kaleun would have a pretty good idea right away if a ship was broken and count it as such. They would not sit on top of the conning tower taking bets "Is it gonna go?... isn't it?"

You may make a case for ships in RL taking a long time to sink. It is my opinion that a real commander would have taken his shots, seen if he had made critical damage (if you even have a chance to 'see' it) then leave marking it down as a kill. They would never just hang about... seeing if it will go down and waiting to see if thier radio is still intact! This is what I would like to see represented. Leave it up to the Kaleun if he wants to sunbathe on deck for 2 days as it sinks.

**Disclaimer: I am not bashing NYGM, I have never tried the mod. Just expressing a difference of opinion over their damage model.

I too would like significant change from the NYGM damage mod. Take Tankers for instance: Carriers of volatilr fluids so sensitive smoking is not allowed on board. Hard to imagine ANY Tanker surviving ONE torpedo impact.
Empty Tankers even more vulnerable (explosive vapors)
Double Hull Tankers: Unknown as far as I can determine during WW2.

Uh hu
Never heard of the SS Ohio ?

During the convoy's journey she was torpedoed by Italian submarine Axum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_submarine_Axum) and hit several times by bombs, and by a Junkers Ju 87 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_87) dive-bomber which crashed onto her deck. With a wrecked engine room and nearly broken in half, she was abandoned and reboarded twice but was eventually towed into Grand Harbour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valletta) whilst sandwiched between two destroyers (HMS Penn (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Penn&action=edit) and Ledbury (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Ledbury&action=edit)) to deliver most of her original cargo of 12,000 tons of diesel and kerosene to the beleaguered island

One torpedo sinking eh ?:rotfl:

[iccalm]

Uh hu
Never heard of the SS Ohio ?

During the convoy's journey she was torpedoed by Italian submarine Axum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_submarine_Axum) and hit several times by bombs, and by a Junkers Ju 87 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_87) dive-bomber which crashed onto her deck. With a wrecked engine room and nearly broken in half, she was abandoned and reboarded twice but was eventually towed into Grand Harbour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valletta) whilst sandwiched between two destroyers (HMS Penn (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Penn&action=edit) and Ledbury (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Ledbury&action=edit)) to deliver most of her original cargo of 12,000 tons of diesel and kerosene to the beleaguered island

One torpedo sinking eh ?:rotfl:[/quote]

OK You got me. I never heard of the SS Ohio. I now have a new found disrespect for Italian Torpedos:yep:
Episodic event I can recall: USS Indianapolis sunk in 12 minutes from 2 torpedo hits.
Can we agree IN GENERAL that Tankers are more vulnerable? I can remember personally in 1942 the beaches of New Jersey were black with Crude Oil and sometimes at night over the horizon flames were visible. The fires did not burn all night and there was no smoke during daylight.

[bigboywooly]

Yes in general they should be more vunerable
Not a ship I would have liked to sail in convoy in

[Hartmann]

In real life Some tankers can float days without explode and others blow up with only a little fire or hull damage.

could depends of the tipe of load, fuel oil, crude, diesel, gasoline... and the existence of gas or the crude temperature.

In the spanish coast a tanker sail during days with heavy damage in the hull until it broke it two and sank

Prestige


http://www.lariadearosa.com/Prestige/Prestige10.jpg

http://www.lariadearosa.com/Prestige/Prestige1.jpg

http://www.uvigo.es/webs/c04/webc04/prestige/prestige/detail3_oil_spill,4.jpg

And other run aground in the coast, with the damage of the hull against the rugged rock bottom it starts to break , when suddenly blow up in a huge ball of fire .

Mar egeo
http://www.lariadearosa.com/Prestige/MarEgeo.jpg

[LaikaFatBum]

Small update...

I am happy to announce one of our upcoming realism enhancements.

Thanks to GWX dev team member Cdre Gibs... ALL fighter aircraft in GWX are now capable of dogfighting approriate opponents, and where appropriate will strafe the player's U-boat prior to bombing if such ordnance is carried by the respective plane.

This is one fix of many that will allow GWX to continue standing toe-to-toe with any "realism" mod.
He use dtb mod?

[Pants]

Small update...

I am happy to announce one of our upcoming realism enhancements.

Thanks to GWX dev team member Cdre Gibs... ALL fighter aircraft in GWX are now capable of dogfighting approriate opponents, and where appropriate will strafe the player's U-boat prior to bombing if such ordnance is carried by the respective plane.

This is one fix of many that will allow GWX to continue standing toe-to-toe with any "realism" mod. He use dtb mod?

Long answer NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO he did not!

Sort answer NO he did not!
WE dont have to resort to stealing..we arn't X-1 you know:down:

[LaikaFatBum]

Small update...

I am happy to announce one of our upcoming realism enhancements.

Thanks to GWX dev team member Cdre Gibs... ALL fighter aircraft in GWX are now capable of dogfighting approriate opponents, and where appropriate will strafe the player's U-boat prior to bombing if such ordnance is carried by the respective plane.

This is one fix of many that will allow GWX to continue standing toe-to-toe with any "realism" mod. He use dtb mod?

Long answer NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO he did not!

Sort answer NO he did not!
WE dont have to resort to stealing..we arn't X-1 you know:down:
no one say steal :-?

[Cdre Gibs]

Besides the fact that I cant stand Der Total Bast... err DTB nor his supposed *cough* realisim edge mod - Many of the Gun tweaks that most mods use or have developed have stem from R&D by myself, or were run paralell to R&D done by my self. I dont need any1's shirt tails to ride on nor do I need a soap box to stand on professing how great I am! So next time do a lil research and get ya bloody facts straight.

The LRG Mod, which I posted Screen shots for, is about Long Range Gunnery. This Mod adressed Naval Gunnery as well as AC gunnery and was developed well and truly before NYGM even saw the light of day. This mod has been Tested and developed over a 6-7 month period and was started over 8-9 months ago. Its never been released BUT its is included in GWX. Its never been stated as so since it was ment to be a surprise (and now will most likely have Kpt Lehmann growling at me) BUT I will not, can not sit idely by and have some dropshort infer that I stole crap from DTB/NYGM.

[fredbass]

See what you all are doing. You're ruining all the good surprises. :damn:

Now please save the rest for release because I am not one of those people who need to see my xmas presents b4 xmas. Thankyou. :)

[Nippelspanner]

See what you all are doing. You're ruining all the good surprises. :damn:

Now please save the rest for release because I am not one of those people who need to see my xmas presents b4 xmas. Thankyou. :)

Oh dont wory we have A LOT of surprises for you and the GW community! :up:

[Razman23]

Oh dont wory we have A LOT of surprises for you and the GW community! :up:


Will this be better than the Paris Hilton Videos?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?! :rock:

[bigboywooly]

Oh dont wory we have A LOT of surprises for you and the GW community! :up:


Will this be better than the Paris Hilton Videos?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?! :rock:

What the hotel ? :rotfl:

[Sailor Steve]

Yes. It's a little known fact that that the GW team was responsible for blowing up the Hilton Hotel in Paris. This was after, not before, the NYGM team recommended Bernard Dummkopf to be their new assistant coffee maker.