To add, read alot of those articles, the deep running was fixed around the end of 1942 for Mark 14, early 1942 for the Mark 10.

Impact at 90 degree hits fixed around June 1943 for the fast moving Mark 14 (Mark 10 never suffered from thsi due to its slower speed).

They completely got rid of magnetic influence detenation (equator the Earth's field is too weak caused alot of premature explosions on the way to hit ship, or dud while passing under ship failing to go off).

Since the AI does not understand the Electric torpedo with no wake, and the Mark 23 is basically a Fast only Mark 14 introduced later in the war -they are redundent.

I would like to get rid of them and use them for different time dates and models for the Mark 14 only.

The Fast speed of the Mark 14 caused the firing pin failure. If you shot it at the slow speed of 31 knots it did not suffer the high speed impact problem as much either. Though it weight was more than a Mark 10 with more momentum. Most subs were firing them at high speed; in reality a slow speed setting, at a lower 45 degree angle, with a shallow depth set, Contact Only, probably would have worked great. Which would have been counter-intuitive to what they were taught was a good firing solution!

I would like to use these other useless ingame models (mark 23 and 18 electric) to show the improvement in the Mark 14 more, late 1942 for depth running fixed, mid 1943 for FAST speed contact pin failure fixed. Complete non-use of magnetic detenation after 1943.

If a person really wanted the Mark 18 to be in there, then since ASFAIK the AI does not 'see' the wakeless torpedo as a human would; improve its hit rate to make it simulate it better performance (not being seen -the game does not model this?).

I think this is caused by the water drag coeffecient is too light for ships and maybe your own submarine. It tends to 'coast' along by its own mometum. Going quite a ways before stopping. It need to be tweaked up for more drag.

Just looking at how they fixed the fast torpedo bug due to 'drag'.

The Realistic Sinking is not implemeted, again. See SH3 NYGM Mod for a fix maybe for longer sinking times. Oh, lets get rid of that instant 'Ship Destoyed' Message -takes the joy out of it like a person blabbing the end of a movie in a theatre just before you see it.

You sure about that? I don't have SH4 but in SH3 my experience is that the AI does react to steam torps but not to electric ones. Since SH4 was built on the same engine (grumble grumble metric - imperial mess up...mutter mutter sub radar useless) it ought to be the same no?

Great stuff - I'm already bored with my almost perfect torpedoes.

Great stuff, CCIP, I'll give it a try as well. Over the weekend I fired 12 torpedoes for 12 perfect detonations from old S-35. I'd like to see a bit less reliability in the mk 10, granted it was waay sturdier than the 14.

One of the interesting things I've noticed in Silent Victory is that early war skippers fired, in many cases, far more fish than the size of the targets would warrant according to the Fleet Sub manual chart. And in spite of incurring the wrath of Fife, Christie and Wilkes, who were ever mindful of the torpedo shortage. I'd like to forced to make the same hard decision - do I fire four at this 2000 freighter, knowing full well that I'm likely only to get 1 or 2 two fish?

While we're on that, can we somehow model in the torpedo shortage? I've noticed there is a finite supply from base to base. However, this supply seems to flucuate between loading saved games.

Now that I have the shells tweak file, I'm going to get around to nerfing the deck guns a bit too. They seem way too powerful as is.

Just made a test patrol and the dissappointing results did not dissappoint me :D

USS Seawolf (normally I give my boat fictional names, but this time not) around May 1942.
Attacked a anchored tast force in the rain somewhere near Celebes (another thing that needs to be removed), fired around 8 torpedoes over open sights at close range for two hits on a destroyer and a Mogami CA, both impact hits for damage.
Fired another four at a large single freighter at 600 yards, 1 dud, one deep runner, one veered off for about 20 deg and one hit and blew up the freigher (freighter DM needs change as well).
Then ran into a convoy, fired my last eight torpedoes at two seperate targets.
Bow salvo at a medium freighter at around 700 yards:
One very close premature about 10-20 yards from the target. One running off course, one dud, one deep runner.
Stern salvo at 3 overlapping small freighters at 1000 yards:
one premature, 3 deep runners, one of which prematured in the wake of a freighter at the far side of the convoy.


Good Work!:rock::hmm::know::up::damn:

Yes. In SH3 the AI seemed to react to steam torps, but only the fast light weight DD could turn fast enough to avoid one.

I really have not seen this in SH4 a DD avoiding the steam torp. Maybe that is because the crew rating for the DD need to upped higher in rank to Veteran. The old steam torp would give away your position.

Testing these Mark 14 fast and slow, I almost want to say they use the Mark 23 torp data model in place of the Mark 14 when you select FAST. The regular Mark 14 at slow speed uses the other normal data. Try setting the Mark 23 to a perfect torpedo then watch the Mark 14 failure rate comparison FAST/SLOW. Does one vary from the other?

The depth running problem seems to accur after 1943 for the stock file. IRL the depth running was fixed in late 1942 before the Firing pin problem in mid 1943. :huh:

I need to test more. Maybe the tweak file did not get it.

great work CCIP, I was hoping someone would get around to this. I will test out and give feedback.

@Jungman...

Check your PMs for info regarding Japanese Convoy History! :ping:

http://files.filefront.com/Torpedoes.../fileinfo.html

There's that slight tweak. I adjusted the dud chances a little and re-added that speed factor (so that Mk 14's going at fast speeds will have more duds as they should), and reduced the gyro error chance slightly (from 5% to 3%, based on Egan's report that he had several of them per salvo - a little too much I think :p). Small tweaks to other types, too, and dumbed down the Mk 10 a little more (she's still good compared to the mk 14, though - right now I'm trying to aim for them being about twice more reliable than the mk 14).

Cheers. Like I said; 6 out of 6 shots seems odd. I'm just building a quick pair of test firings - Not chancing my career game on any more just now! lol.

Well, it COULD happen of course. Seems very unlikely to say the least though! (in fact the chance of that should be one in thousands...)

I my tests where I wrote down results with the 5% chance, I had a total of 3 gyro errors per 60 torpedoes fired. My original intension was to have it somewhere in the area of 1 likely failure per a full patrol's load of torpedoes.

Should be a little less now.

In 1944 on april 8 Harlfinger in Trigger ran into a convoy that was the largest they had encountered so far in the war. 4 columns of ships with about 5 ships in each row. Equalling 20 ships or about. There were 10 escorts identified with it but properbly more. Trigger took 25 close depth charges at 300 ft. - later 6 destroyers circled him for 18 hours.... Water leak, temperature in the boat at 135 deg F, lights out, cork insulation flying around in the boat, switches undone, valves leaked, hull buckled in and out.

Above is from reading Silent Victory by Clay Blair Jr. - a magnificent book that lists more or less ALL submarine patrols and what they encountered on each patroll.

I would say the most average encounter would be two merchants and two escorts in a convoy.

March 12 was the date Chester Nimitz (jr.) sent the message to Christie that he had now deactivated the magnetic exploders. Nimitz were up to that patrol officer in charge of developing the exploders in Fremantle. They simply gave up on having them work at all at that point. Christie then gave orders to not use the magnetic exploders.

I heartily agree that Blair's work is magnificent. But the detail required for creating historical convoys is superficial at best.

A much better source, S. Komimaya's Japanese Wartime Transportation Convoy History, is invaluable to the serious researcher. This work coupled with a copy of ONI-208J provides a great deal data for convoy makeup.

Here is the same convoy Trigger encountered from Komimaya. I have boldfaced Trigger's action.