:yeah:

let me know in case you spot any error: I have updated the spreadsheet during my spare time, and I could have made several mistakes :salute:

Am I going crazy, or did uboat.net change their format for listing coordinates? I was trying to do U-34's second patrol, but they seem to have switched from the old deg/min + compass direction to a coordinate plane format :hmmm:

Is anyone else seeing this?

yes, you are right, and this is happening just after your email to the site owner... :o

maybe they don't like our using their data. :-?

I will tweak once more our calculator spreadhseet, and I will make it to accept the new coordinate format, but I couldn't ever imagine that v 3 would have been that short-lived :O:

As we say in such cases - like the best, but it turned out as always..

(not sure of the accuracy of the translation :oops:)

:06:

sorry Volodya, I don't get it :oops:

In other words - 'we wanted to make a better, but turned worse as always.. :)

Now it is much more clear! :up:

Spanish speakers would say that metimos la pata: we have put our foot where we shouldn't have :D

That crossed my mind as well, but I think it's just a very poorly timed coincidence. The gentleman with whom I exchanged e-mails was enthusiastic about the project and seemed familiar with both SH3 and SH5.

From what I have seen of it so far, it looks great :up:

Murphy's Law strikes again :O:

Yes, I am also sure about it: websites of this kind are normally run by passion-driven history lovers, with no other concern than to spread their hobby. We were just making some fun :03:

Currently working on the +/- coordinates format :up:

Damn Murphy, he got to stick his nose everywhere... especially when it is about SH5 :dead: :haha:

U-boat logs generator v.3
 

3rd version of the log generator ready for download:

http://www.mediafire.com/view/?0ms3ml9vet9de5t

udates list:

• it now accepts coordinates in both N-E/S-W and +/- formats;
  
  
• added an informative row on U-boat's veterancy level, as calculated from commander's ranking and sunk tonnage.

The ranking will be affected negatively by suffered damage (-2 levels). In this respect, I am thinking to add a -1 fatigue factor at the end of very long patrols or after suffered attacks (the latter reversible after a few days). Similarly, I could add a morale boost lasting few days after any successful attack or mid-patrol refitting, and for the duration of wolfpack operations. What do you think? :hmm2:

:up:

Tying morale/veterancy to refits, successes, and damage is an excellent idea. I would be cautious about adding too large a boost for U-boats participating in wolfpack operations, since this would include quite a lot of boats in later years. I also agree with decreasing skill level after long patrols, though it would be best to tie this to U-boat type so that Type IXs are still capable of long-range operations.

As I was reviewing past patrol logs today, I was also wrestling with the logic of including minelaying operations in the veterancy calculations—I know, I'm always babbling on about minelaying :O: I can think of four justifications for the change:

• Minelaying was a hazardous operation that required considerable skill.
• The success of a captain's minelaying operation can be reasonably determined by the tonnage sunk by those mines. If a U-boat sank a large number of ships with her mines, that's a good indication of the captain's abilities; conversely, unsuccessful mine fields are often indicative of poor mine placement. (I know of at least one skipper that was relieved for setting his mines improperly, as Dönitz thought he lacked the skill/courage to infiltrate a harbor.)
• Those captains that were skilled enough to infiltrate harbor defenses and set their mines in busy shipping lanes should see their skill increased.
• Including minelaying tonnage in the veterancy calculations would simplify the calculation required of volunteers.

To play devil's advocate with myself, here are a few reasons to keep it as it is:

• While minelaying requires skill, it is a different sort of skill from calculating firing solutions and sinking merchants.
• Adding minelaying tonnage might necessitate a rebalance of the veterancy tonnage levels.
• Minelaying tonnage reflects sheer luck, in addition to infiltration ability and seamanship.

Sorry for thinking out loud here, but I think it's an issue worth talking about.

Sorry for the delay of my answer keysersoze: I was devicing a bonuses/handicaps plan for our ranking system; what do you think about it? :03:



Numbers I have entered in the above charts are just indicative, so please feel free to suggest better ones :up:

I like your playing devil's advocate :haha:

In my opinion, the only significant downside to your proposal is that including mine-sunk tonnage would unbalance our ranking/tonnage calculation, and I was quite satisfied with the nice ranking progressions we had obtained so far.

Right now I don't feel like rethinking the whole system, but if you can put yourself at work on it, I will be glad to update our spreadsheet with the numbers you will suggest. :salute:

Nice work :up: I only have one very minor suggestion: we might want to change the modifier for "suffered attack" from -2 to -1. Even though the time delay is set to 1 day, in the mid- to late-war U-boats were attacked so often that it might be imprudent to penalize them so harshly.

Indeed, you did a great job with the tonnage calculation, and I wouldn't want to obviate that work. I checked the personnel records for all U-boat captains scoring above 50,000 tons. To my surprise, I found that there were only ten captains who stood to benefit from including mine tonnage (out of the 84 aces). Here is a breakdown of the ten captains who sunk vessels with their mines:

Wolfgang Lüth
47 ships sunk, 225756 tons
1 ship sunk [mine], 5995 tons = 2.7% of total

Wilhelm Rollmann
23 ships sunk, 103884
1 ship sunk [mine], 7807 tons = 7.5% of total

Fritz-Julius Lemp
20 ships sunk, 96639 tons
5 ships sunk [mine], 27540 tons = 28.5% of total

Karl-Heinz Moehle
21 ships sunk, 93197 tons
2 ships sunk [mines], 7929 tons = 8.5% of total

Georg Schewe
16 ships sunk, 85779 tons
1 ship sunk [mine], 4373 tons = 5.1% of total

Fritz Frauenheim
19 ships sunk and damaged, 78853 tons
1 ship sunk [mine], 605 tons = 0.8% of total

Friedrich Markworth
13 ships sunk and damaged, 74067 tons
2 ships sunk [mine], 64 tons = 0.09% of total

Otto Schuhart
13 ships sunk, 89777 tons
2 ships sunk [mine], 5222 tons = 5.8% of total

Günter Kuhnke
13 ships sunk and damaged, 56272 tons
1 ships sunk (total loss) [mine], 9577 tons = 17.0% of total

Fritz-Julius Lemp and Günter Kuhnke are clearly the two outliers; the other eight would receive fairly modest increases to their tonnage scores. Keep in mind, also, that the numbers above represent just 10 out of 84 captains top-scoring captains. These figures make me more confident that we could include mine tonnage without upsetting the skill level calculations. We would merely assume—a reasonable assumption, I think, given our sources—that the number of ships sunk by mines is a reflection of the commander's skill level.

A disclaimer: if this talk about minelaying is a silly distraction, then feel free to tell me as much. I promise not to be offended :O:

No problem. Anyway my -2 handicap setting was a bit redundant, since according to what we had previously agreed (doctrine settings), boats under attack wouldn't be available for supporting our attacks anyway. By the way, is it okay a -1 handicap for the day following enemy attacks?

Something I forgot to note is that handicap and bonuses will be cumulative, but I will set a formula cutting off results which will exceed 2 levels respective to the base veterancy level.

One last thing: what do you think of the long patrol/very long patrols handicap settings suggested by me: they will be triggered by two conditions: days on patrol exceeding a fixed number of weeks (respectively 6 and 12), and days on patrol exceeding a percentage of the total patrol lenght (respectively 50 and 75%). In order to trigger the handicap, both conditions need to be true. The percent condition is meant for making sure that crews won't get fatigued too early during long patrols; the fixed days condition is meant for making sure that crews won't get fatigued during too short patrols. Are you okay with this system, and with the numbers I have set?

Okay :up:

As we are at it, should we include in our calculations also captured vessels? This would greatly semplificate the work of data collectors :yep:

Not at all keyser :haha:

however I hate anti-personnel mines, I am simply too fond of naval mines :D

:help:

Yes, I think this is okay, as it would represent lingering morale effects of frequent air attacks. To be clear, are we talking about both destroyer and air attacks?

:up:

I like your system, and I can see the wisdom of having two separate conditions. I initially thought there might be a need to include different settings for Type II, Type VII, and Type IX boats to provide for patrols like this, but your "percentage of total patrol length" condition should take care of the problem of extremely long patrols.

Yes, I agree with including captured vessels in the calculation :up:

I feel the same way—it also helps that our naval mines are the virtual kind :O: