SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Deck Gun Viewport Camera to be destabilized in GWX 2.1

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- SHIII Mods Workshop (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=195)

- - Deck Gun Viewport Camera to be destabilized in GWX 2.1 (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=131268)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kpt. Lehmann

It is tied to the sea state and moves accordingly. Though there is still a fair amount of movement in calm seas as one would expect when viewing a magnified image.

That has eased my apprehension. Thank you KL.:up:

By all accounts I've read?
I guess GWX doesn't tamp the powder down before the DG fires?
That may account for the rapid rate of fire.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pablo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faamecanic

Good show with the idea of making the deck gun "less uber"... I did run across this interesting book and the use of the deck gun IRL to sink a tanker in the Carribiean on a patrol. This was during a ...ahem...discussion I was having with Beery and others on his low fire rate with RuB. But I think it applies here showing that 1) yes the deck gun WAS used to sink boats (but only in ideal conditions. 2) it took MANY rounds to sink one boat.

****************

The book is "U-Boat War Patrol" The Hidden Photographic Diary of U 564 ISBN: 1-85367-575-X. Got it from amazon.com and it is a GREAT book. Its like Iron Coffins with 400+ pics. of the actual war Patrol

U564 was a Type VII-C under the command of Reinhard 'Teddy' Suhren.

The incident I was referring to starts on page 150 - 157.

U564 engaged a Large Tanker (8,176tons) with its last pair of torpedos. One hit, but the other got hung up in the tube (hot running!) due to damage to the external torpedo door linkage being bent by a Depth Charge attack earlier.

Teddy surfaced the Uboat and waited for the lifeboats with 39 sailors and 2 British gunners to get clear of the tanker. They then commenced firing on the tanker. This was approx. in August 1940.

From the book (pp. 156-157)

"Within the hull, the ammunition was broken out of its store beneath the decking next to the commander's cabin, unloaded from each individual metal container and passed laboriously by hand through the conning tower hatch and out to the waiting gun crew. As each round slid down the small chute that folded down from the conning towers front, it was taken and held in readiness for use by the two loaders on hand for the task.

Over the next twenty five minutes, fifty shells streaked across the narrow gap that seperated the two vessels, thirty five of them impacting on the Vardaas..

So.... it seems this Type VII-C with a experienced crew could fire 2 shells a minute, with a 70% hit rate.

Now...back to the 60 seconds between shells in RuB... I still feel that realisitic. Here is why. First U 564 had a crew that had all worked together for at least 4 patrols. This was VERY unusual. Most crews rotated frequently. There were only THREE people on U564 that had not been on 4 patrols together (1 Officer Engineer in trianing, 1 photographer, 1 seaman).

Realistically we would never have a combined crew that would have worked with eachother this long. Especially in the latter years (1942 and out).

Just thought you guys would like to know what at least one primary source says... that a 2 shell per min rate wouldnt be unrealistic. But not likely. Im sure there are other primary sources out there that say something different.

Hi!

Thank you for pointing that source out; we have assembled a fairly extensive research library during the course of developing GWX, and I recommend reading Teddy Suhren's book, Teddy Suhren: Ace of Aces in addition to Patterson's U-boat War Patrol book. You are correct in assuming there is a wide range of reported rates of fire; unfortunately, the U-boat war diaries aren't always clear as to why the guns fired at the rate they did: in the example from Patterson's book, you don't know whether the rate of fire was constrained by the speed at which ammunition was handed up through the conning tower and sent down to the deck gun; if the sea state only allowed the gun to aim properly twice per minute; if the gunners would fire a few rounds, gauge the effect, fire a few more rounds, gauge the effect, etc.; or a combination of all three.

Beery's "Real U-boat" (RUb) mod reduced the reload rate to try to emulate the effects of historically reported rates of fire; however, there are numerous citations in the literature, as well as archival footage of U-boat deck guns in action, that indicate the deck gun rate of fire was on the order of 12-15 rounds per minute in good conditions, with ammunition ready at-hand for loading, and if the gun was fired as soon as a new round was loaded. The 88mm and 105mm deck guns were, after all, a "quick firing" gun, so constraining the reload rate of the deck gun to that of the muzzle-loading cannon of a 19th ship-of-the-line seemed unsatisfactory to us - especially to GWX team members who had served in the field artillery.

We have therefore tried to arrive at the same effect (closer to historically reported results) by destabilizing the gun, as we expect the effect of the destabilization will prompt players to lower the rate of fire themselves as they wait for the motion of the U-boat to bring the gun to bear. We also expect a large number of missed shots, even at close range, as Suhren reported in U-564. Furthermore, the sinking rates of ships in GWX is generally slower than in stock Silent Hunter III or RuB, so that firing a few rounds rapidly, gauging the effect, and then firing a few more rounds rapidly is a reasonable course of action.

It will clearly be in the U-boat commander's best interest to use gunnery only in good weather (to reduce destabilization effects), to use gunnery only against targets that cannot shoot back (since ships are better gunnery platforms than U-boats), and to be within a few hundred yards of a target (to reduce the effect of aiming errors): all of which are tactics recommended in the wartime U-boat Commander's Handbook.

All-in-all, we think this is a better solution in terms of U-boat simulation because it presents you with more of the same factors that affected real-life U-boat commanders (and gunners) and allows you the freedom to choose from among the same choices faced by historical commanders. If you pick the historical course of action, it should be because it is the best decision you can make in circumstances that are as close as we can make them to the historical event, rather than because we arbitrarily forced you do do something that way. We can't always give you a choice since we cannot change the game engine, but in this case I think it will work out well.

Pablo

To add to Pablo's statement, the player can continue to have the AI crew do the shooting as always... which will likely produce better accuracy as opposed to direct usage by the player.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikbear

I fail to see why the inclusion of A destabilised gun and UZO can't be left to an option in the mods folder for GWX2.1,that way keeping everybody happy,In fact why not just do it as an option and announce it only when its released,then these disagreements wouldn't boil over into slanging matches:nope:

...because including an option for everything under the sun would be counterproductive to producing a historically minded package and would confuse users even moreso than they are already.

...because it would add to user support demands. BELIEVE ME! You don't have to think about such things... but we must. The volume of queries/questions and user-created problems that the GWX team has addressed over time and will continue to address is massive. No matter how well we write the instructions, no matter how user-friendly we make an installer, and no matter how many times we preach "RTFM!!!" people will still make installation mistakes.

...whether it is your dislike of this element (even though you've yet to try it:shifty: ) or someone else's dislike of some other element in GWX... there is no panacea or magic bullet that we can produce to make every user 100% happy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikbear

I always thought the maxim for SubSim/SH3 was variety,choice and options to talior the gaming experiance to how the player wants,and that GWX was the pinnacle of that,I hope that isn't going to change:up:

That remains absolutely true for Subsim. Diversity is alive and well at Subsim. That diversity is what allowed GWX to come into existence and improve over time. We (the GWX Dev Team) have always decided how we would build GWX and the direction that it takes. It is a representation of what we felt was needed to further simulate the U-boat war. If you don't like what we do, you can either change it for yourself or you can use some other mod package! Mate, you can get angry all you like... but your statement implying that GWX somehow dictates what people do to their installations to suit their individual play styles, has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. It is entirely unreasonable for users to expect us (the GWX Dev team) to release an option for every conceivable wish.

Getting angry at us for the way we interpret matters concerning realism, modification methodology etc... changes nothing. At the end of the day...those who do the hard work of building GWX, make the final decisions concerning its implimentation and content. That is only fair.

Thank you for clearing that up,For the record I'm not getting angry,far from it, its your mod and and you can do what you like with it;) I'm just concerned that it seem to be increasingly aimed towards a more hardcore type of player while the more casual player is left behind,new players might find it alot harder to start with when they first download the latest GWX,but I'm sure you've taken this into consideration, so be it:up:

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikbear

No worries.

We've been pushing casual players out of their comfort zones since the original Grey Wolves project began. What many don't realize is that all that cool eye and ear candy... really serves a dual role to be the "sugar that helps the medicine go down." (Those aircraft for example... look really cool... but they can lay a world of hurt on you.)

One thing we've noticed is a trend amongst new users since the release of 2.0 (and before for that matter) that come to Subsim straight away asking about available mods and tend to install GWX over SH3 without ever playing stock SH3 at all! Therefore they have no idea what was missing from the game... and no idea what has been added or changed. GWX modifications certainly don't harm those individuals. (Hence many of the "GWX Bug" threads that appear... that have absolutely nothing to do with GWX!) Infact, in some ways... they have the advantage of not learning "bad habits" and erroneous impressions that can be garnered by playing stock SH3.

I'm not downing new users here... they are simply/naturally unaware of about three years of modding evolution that has transpired here in these forums... and are sometimes the most demanding users as a result.

Secondarily, I'm sure that you've seen other modders/users working to remove elements of GWX that irritate them as fast as they are able to do so. (The contact tails for example.)

It is far easier to deconstruct than it is to make forward progress anyway. I have no doubt that within days (maybe even hours or minutes) after the release of 2.1... that somebody will post a mod that removes this GWX feature.

However you cut it though, no one is harmed by our modifications or a lack of choice.

Besides, the way we see it... a "shock to the system" is an awesome thing. For as long as we work on the GWX project... that will always be what we aim for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by privateer

Interpretating data from reports and documents
is one thing.
Liveing it is another.
Reports and documents are data which can be,
and often is, contorted to prove a given point of view.

I've fought Helmet Laws in Ohio and other States for 20+ years.
I've read EVERY study, EVERY document, EVERY report put out.
By those documents and studies and reports?
I DIED 20 years ago!!!
All my friends are brain dead.
The Motorcycle industry does not exist!

So much for "Facts"
:roll:

You'd have to be pretty brain dead to think using a helmet on a motorbike was a bad idea. The problem with bikers is when they're being cocky and something goes wrong they don't usually learn from their mistakes. They're dead from decapitation or degloving.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bertle

Quote:

Originally Posted by privateer

Believe me... I've already read him the riot act. It boils down to the fact that Privateer has freedom of choice and does not wish to be 'legislated' into wearing his helmet. Privateer has also earned the right more than most... to have that freedom of choice.

<As an aside, degloving doesn't normally kill. Its messy, painful, and reconstruction/rehabilitation is long and difficult... but is generally surviveable.>

I know nothing of statistics, and am only qualified to speak regarding my own experiences with serious motorcycle accidents... but I will not.

Back to the topic at hand... SH3 users certainly have freedom of choice when it comes to which mods they prefer. This topic has wandered all over the place and has generated much controversy over an element that no one (outside the GWX team) has yet to even bother using before slagging it.

U-boats did not have inertially stabilized weapons. Anything we can do to disrupt "modern day" weapon behavior in SH3... is an improvement to the overall simulation.

Removing the stabilization of the deck gun viewport removes a gratuitous advantage, and a crutch that some have used to achieve outlandish tonnage hauls.

It sounds harsh to some I am sure... but in the end... it really is a good thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bertle

Quote:

Originally Posted by privateer

This is starting to move toward General Topics territory, but since it's here I'll address it.

I've been riding for 41 years now, and I agree: you have to be an idiot to ride without a helmet. That said, Privateer wasn't addressing helmets, he was addressing helmet laws. I neither know nor care how he rides. If we were friends I might drive him crazy telling him he should wear one (assuming that he doesn't). But I stand with him 100% against the arrogance of people who pass laws "for your own good". You preach about the "problem" with bikers being "cocky". Is it your place to tell us how to live? I say the same thing to seat belt laws: If you want to protect my children from my stupidity, go ahead. If you want to try to force me to protect myself, go to hell.

Oh, and I always wear a seatbelt, too.

Oops; I got so excited I didn't even notice Lehman had alread posted his feelings on this.

As he said, back to the topic. I always defended Beery's reload times, even while I didn't use them myself.:oops: I thought that his intentions were good, if off the mark, and I got tired of people attacking him out of hand, just as I disagree with some of GWX's decisions, but defend them as well. One of the things I always said was "Until you figure out a way to make the deck gun act historically as to firing problems, don't keep arguing for a realistic reload time that ignores changing sea conditions!"

Well, it looks like that's happening now, and I'm as excited as a cat that's found the whole mouse tribe in one place. I'm looking forward to this one.

A. Didn't mean to start a Helmet Debate.
B. I do wear a helmet, when I feel like it. Even ordered one to match my Triumph.
C. I believe in "Educate, Don't Legislate!"
D. I'm not a Cockey Biker. I'm actually kinda quite and laid back. (Most of the time)
E. Now I'm really gonna go after the deck guns!!
:rotfl: :rotfl:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pablo

All-in-all, we think this is a better solution in terms of U-boat simulation because it presents you with more of the same factors that affected real-life U-boat commanders (and gunners) and allows you the freedom to choose from among the same choices faced by historical commanders. If you pick the historical course of action, it should be because it is the best decision you can make in circumstances that are as close as we can make them to the historical event, rather than because we arbitrarily forced you do do something that way. We can't always give you a choice since we cannot change the game engine, but in this case I think it will work out well.

Pablo

Couldnt agree more...the compromises that the GWX team has made given the limitations of this being a game engine vs. real life always represent exactly that..a compromise.

I didnt know Teddy shuren wrote his own book...I will definately look that up being as I am become quite the U-boat war history buff these past few years.

You guys have done an excellent job, GWX sure has saved SH3 for me because without GWX I would have stopped playing SH3 a long time ago, and I have yet to re-load SH4 after being very disappointed with it. :up:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kpt. Lehmann

[
Removing the stabilization of the deck gun viewport removes a gratuitous advantage, and a crutch that some have used to achieve outlandish tonnage hauls.

It sounds harsh to some I am sure... but in the end... it really is a good thing.

Amen to that.... I remember in Stock SH3 getting 70,000+ ton patrols consistantly, and was a member of the 100k ton club a few times. How boring!!!

With GWX 2.0 and my IXB Im LUCKY to have a 50,000 ton patrol, and even that I feel is too much. When the greatest Uboat aces were LUCKY in the EARLY part of the UBoat war to get more than 12,000 tons... you can bet its still too easy if you are consistantly getting that.

I would be happy if in a patrol I was able to bag 2-3 ships... as this would have been a REAL accomplishment, especially in the later war.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kpt. Lehmann

To add to Pablo's statement, the player can continue to have the AI crew do the shooting as always... which will likely produce better accuracy as opposed to direct usage by the player.

Thats scarry as the gun crew on my boat is lead by BERNARD :lol: and is just as likely to put a 88mm shell through my deck as he is that juicy merchants :yep:

Seriously that is cool.... I always wanted a reason to rely on my crew vs. me always shooting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faamecanic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kpt. Lehmann

To add to Pablo's statement, the player can continue to have the AI crew do the shooting as always... which will likely produce better accuracy as opposed to direct usage by the player.

Same here.:yep: