Well you answered your own question. RSRD reduces traffic over stock but perhaps increased singletons by up to 97%. Not sure how you arrived at that figure but at any rate, it keeps the game interesting but not overly crazy with traffic. As far as the cannon, sinking ships after hitting it with one torpedo is not how it was done in RL and I hope you are not playing it that way. Doctrine stated sending out 3 torpedoes to assure a hit and hopeful sinking. Use magnetic only until instructed to switch to impact. Your cannon is for defense only. Again, find a list of ships sunk by cannon fire concerning US subs. Let me know when you find it. :03:

Now, you do have the ability to change the traffic to your liking. RSRD is work done by Lurker who painstaking added all major engagements for you to witness and perhaps take part in. Until then you spend you time sinking singletons so you do not get bored to tears. Not a bad formula IMO.:yeah: Also, if you do not reach your patrol zone the game considers your command a failure. So blowing through your torps on the way to your patrol zone is a bad idea.

You sure make a lot of assumptions about how I play without having ever seen me actually do so. I just hope that it's simply a matter of my score seems impossibly higher than yours and you're trying to figure out how, and not the other more obvious reason. Get my drift?

To respond to that; no, I fire spreads of 2, 3 or 4 depending on:
Submarine type (number of tubes)
Torpedo Type
Year
Target Type

In the eary war years, it's almost always 3 or 4 torpedoes unless firing stern tubes on a boat that only has 2. Once the torpedoes get reliable, I tend to fire 2 at a smaller target. Any more is just a waste if you know how to shoot straight. Also, you may be interested to note that all those S-boat kills where done without using the tdc, because it shouldn't have one.

And no, the deck gun was not there for ornamentation. Like all weaponry, (even the .30 cal machine guns stowed in the conning tower that can't actually be used in game) it's used when the tactical situation says that it's the best course of action. No more, no less. You go ahead and do whatever research you feel you must. I've already done a lot of that for this thread and I'm busy.


No, it doesn't reduce traffic at all. Just removes the convoys puts new ones in and leaves the singles alone. At least that's how it looks from where I'm sitting. Does not keep the game interesting at all, it's just target practice. You may as well just load and play this day in and day out (click me). If you ask me, once you know how to shoot straight, that's just dull. I don't understand what you don't get about this? BTW, wasn't really a question in that.

That's a gamey justification if I ever heard one. Unless command had a special reason for sticking you there (like a suspected invasion fleet moving through the area which you would be briefed on), I would think command would be overjoyed that you sank enough ships to make the trip worthwhile regardless of whether you reached the designated patrol zone or not. You do not win a war by avoiding any and all targets of opportunity. In fact, if you did that, I think you just might be looking at a mutiny or at least a severely damaged reputation. Anyways, what I do to make the game happy is go to the patrol zone and wait the required time to complete the objective, even if I have no ammo.

Since AVGWarhawk is so skeptical of my score, here's some simple math:

Note I said this earlier:

Most fleet boats have carry 24 torpedoes.

Fired in volleys of 4 torpedoes is 6 salvos. Some volleys would be smaller, but this is basically a worst case.

The average merchant is in the neighborhood of 5,000 tons. Some heavier some lighter, but that's a decent average.

6 salvos * 5,000 tons = 30,000 tons.

If you can shoot straight, that's a reasonably easy score to get. Notice that this number isn't much lower than the 38,500 ton average I had been getting? Hmmmmm....

If you consider that I tend to sink the small ships (in the 2-3k tons range) with the deck gun, that skews the average tonnage per merchant torpedoed upwards. If you're so all fired against using the deck gun for more than personal defence and finishing off cripples, just let the smaller ones go and I would be supprised if you couldn't achieve 35k+ per patrol without too much difficulty. Simple as that.

You are a hoot bud. :har: Gosh how does he do it? BTW, point out were I have assumed anything...

No sir, I asked you to do the research. You will find none on ships sunk by cannon fire. But hey what do I know? Blasting vessels with the cannon other than a sanpan or two was not the order of the day.

Well good for you for figuring it out. And you will fix this issue and have it ready when? If not, how about attempting to enjoy the work and stop brow beating a free mod? Just a nice courtesy for a person who took over a year to create it for you...for free:03:


Wrong again, the game does not care how many ships you sink. It cares only for completing the mission. When you get a chance, ask the developers. They visit here daily. But you knew this already correct? What you think and what is reality in the game are two different things. In fact, start searching the forums for getting retired after sinking billions of tons. The commonality was not completing the ordered patrols. Let me guess, you have no time to do that as you are attending this thread. This was know over two years ago.

I never said I was skeptical of your score. You said that. Please, do not put words on others mouths. I do not care about your score. I was offering up suggestions to why your score is large. You are the one complaining about traffic. There is an old saying, "The first to complain about today's meal is tomorrows cook." So, your new traffic mod will be ready when? :hmmm:

Tell you what guy, click the link to the development forum for these free wonderful mods at your finger tips. Find RSRD and read the two years of working on this mod.

http://forum.kickinbak.com/index.php...647a9120c08614

Lurker would love to hear what you have to say. :yeah: All are open for suggestions and help.

Here is the first inkling of what the game sees and determins if you continue:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...8&postcount=48

Beery, one hell of a modder and started what is now known today as RFB. Take it for what it is worth. Blasting billions of tons means nothing. So blowing by targets of opportunity is ok in the games book. The game just wants your butt in the patrol area. :03: BTW, if you ever make it to Baltimore, come visit me on the Torsk, we can talk with guys who were there. My guess is they know more than you and I could ever know. :up:

Well, im kinda sorry this thread started and went the way it did, and i kinda wish i never posted in it. I have a ton of respect for Lurker. His campaigns are like supermods unto themselves, and he maintains THREE of them, and then he keeps compatible versions for RFB , TMO, and stock on top of that. That is an enormous amount of time and work. I can tell you that if he's read this thread, he's probably biting his lip, if not chomping at the bit.

Constructive critcism is helpful and is alot easier to accept as compared to anything that resembles brow beating or "being yelled at". Just sayin'.

I had much the same situation with RSRD as others in this thread, couldn't find convoys in 12 or 13 patrols. Nothing but singles. I didn't blame RSRD for this but rather my lack of skill in finding convoys. I would complete 3 or 4 missions each patrol and would sink anything I came across, had a very good average in tons sunk. I got very good at shooting singles and perfected my vector analysis method as well as PK shots. But what I didn't perfect was my patrol methodology.

I have nothing but respect and appreciation for Lurkers work and for sure will use RSRD in my next campaign. I know more now than I did then.

If I was to make a constructive criticism, it would be that maybe a few more smaller convoys in place of some of the singles. If Lurker is still actively working on the RSRD that might be a place he could look at, but if he didn't want to do so I can't say I'd blame him. One thing I have learned about modding is nothing is a simple as it seems, and I don't even mod.

Magic

I have to say that comment was assholish of me. Besides which, that kind of attitude about difficulty settings is something I tend to detest in other people. I dunno why I said it like that but I did, and I apologize.



Your lectures on how it should be played are a pretty clear indicator that you think it's being played in some other fashion or that I'm being dishonest.

You even came pretty close to outright saying it:
I guess it was the more obvious reason then.




I somehow missed it when you where coronated "King of the world". Besides, it's the way of the internet to make an assertion and demand that the other party do the legwork on it, so what was I thinking?



Beery said:

Which has nothing to do with what you're saying.



If you don't think that reality and the game are two different things, please for your sake, see a shrink.

Edit: Oh, I just reread this and think that part of this is a simple misunderstanding... You think I care about the game's definition of good? Wrong. I'm more interested in recreating history than the game's definition of my "score".

TBH, I'm an experienced modder (and a software engineer to boot) and would *love* to take a crack at it. I just don't have the time ATM. In some ways, I really wish I did though.

The thing about game modding, from my experience, is that it's kinda like crack. You get into it, it gets into your skin, and next thing you know, you just have no life. I left that scene behind about a year ago now. Took a girl to snap me out of it (thank god for her). While part of me wishes that I could, there's another part of me that's like this great big neon flashing danger sign. Who knows what the future will bring though. Since it took 11 years for the series to revisit fleetboats, it looks like I have time for that sign's lightbulb to burn out.

Anyways, I'm done going around in circles with you warhawk. I know your type and it's simply not worth my time to argue with you, over a game of all things. Meh...



Just for anyone that's curious to see any of the mod worrk I've done (since it was brought up), see:
http://colonelsanderslite.armaholic.eu/

Yeah, clearly he put a lot of effort into it, which certainly deserves credit and praise. If anything I've said intones otherwise, I've misrepresented my opinion on that subject. I just think that it needs more love to be all the way "there" if you get my meaning.

Excellent!

Sure thing! But we have time to post most of the day and throw a crack or two at mod :shifty:

ColSanders: You're bordering on insolence. Please tone things down a notch and refrain from personally insulting long-standing Subsim members (including a former moderator) who are respected in the community and are only trying to help you. I understand you probably mean no harm, but I assure you that some either are or will be concluding that you do.

Setting yourself up into an adversarial relationship with top modders and members isn't what you really want to do, is it?

Look, if SH4, young as it is, was nearing perfection, it would be near its death. The journey toward a perfection that can never be reached is far more important than actually reaching it. So SH4 sucks! Until you compare it with anything else out there in the sub sim field... Then it's mostly brilliant.