None of that matters. IT DOESN'T MATTER. IT DOESN'T MATTER!

It doesn't matter because we use values taken directly from a combat situation that shows a rate of fire that is not subject to possibilities about how the gun was served. I still don't understand why that is so difficult for some folks to grasp.

Over a long engagement, would the difference between ready ammo and ammo below really change the ROF much?

If the 17 seconds was used, and there were what, 10-20 ready rounds? Say 10. That's 170 seconds of shooting, just shy of 3 minutes. During 3 minutes, how many rounds are brought up on deck? If they can get 10 on deck in 3 minutes, the ROF would not be ammo supply limited.

That's ~3.5 rounds per minute, and they'd apparently get ~62-66% hits. 2.3 hits per minute. which given the gyro guns and a ~20-something second reload is about what RFB does.

Wrong. Firstly, it's not 'one recorded ROF by Whahoo' [sic]. It's the result of two years collecting data from numerous engagements in WW2. Wahoo is the boat with the fastest combat ROF that I've EVER found for any submarine. It's not like I'm cherry-picking data here, and to suggest I'm doing so is disingenuous in the extreme, especially given the reasons I've posted in the course of this discussion and the one in the RFB thread. I use the evidence from Wahoo because it is the fastest combat ROF we've found, it's the only evidence of an elite-crewed US sub of the type we use a lot in the game and it is unique in its details - we have the number of rounds, we have times. Plus, what we need is a fast ROF from an elite boat - precisely what Wahoo gives us.

If it was real evidence I would not belittle it. But anecdotal evidence is extremely unreliable. That's the case if it comes from you, me, from decorated war heroes or from the President of the United States. As for the other so-called 'evidence' we've seen, none of it relates to subs in combat in WW2. That is the ONLY reason why it has not been taken into account. If someone finds me evidence of subs in combat I'll use it - as I did when the Wahoo evidence was submitted. After all, I didn't come up with that evidence - it was presented and it tore apart my argument for using a slower rate of fire. So it's not as if I don't countenance any new evidence when it doesn't suit my preconceptions.

Anyway, if there is belittling of evidence going on here it's being directed at the crew of the Wahoo. They wrote down their evidence at the time the engagement happened. Yet their evidence is being ignored by all of RFB's critics here. If it's not okay to ignore anecdotal evidence why is it okay to ignore the evidence submitted by crew of the Wahoo? Somehow I sense a bit of hypocrisy going on here. You're trying to paint me as a person who belittles the evidence of veterans (an ad hominem attack by the way) yet you choose to count only the evidence of veterans whose opinion matches yours. It's very convenient that the veterans only spoke their opinion - if any of them had written it down that would carry more weight, but even so it's still anecdotal. The crew of the USS Wahoo documented their experience on the day it happened. They didn't wait to tell it 50 years later over breakfast. That's why I rely on the crew of the Wahoo - they wrote down their evidence when it was as fresh as can be.

You have 200 veterans all telling you about a deck gun's rate of fire? Two hundred? That's amazing! You should write a book. I mean there are writers renowned in their fields who don't interview that many people for ten books. How far did you travel to get all these deck gun reminiscences? Two hundred guys giving you a rate of fire value for the subs they worked on - amazing! I mean I was a picture framer for five years in the 1990s (just ten years ago) but I can't remember for the life of me how long it took me to cut a mat - I can guess, but I'm sure I'd be way off. But these guys' memories were so sharp on details that took place over 50 years ago - incredible! Almost unbelievable in fact.

I DO. The Wahoo evidence is proof that I extend that courtesy to people who bring up new evidence - as long as it is evidence that relates to the subject. Remember, I never saw the Wahoo evidence until Kikn79 posted it last week, so it's not 'my' evidence that I've cynically put forward to advance my 'slow ROF agenda'. The problem here is not that I have an agenda. The problem is that there IS INDEED an agenda that some people are forwarding here and these folks bring flimsy evidence that fits that agenda even if it doesn't relate to US subs in WW2. Then they get upset when I don't change everything to suit what they want.

Of course the ROF is an open question, but that doesn't mean we should leave our brains at the door and be willing to accept any flimsy evidence that comes along. Nor does it mean that we should have a preferred ROF value in mind and only accept evidence that fits what we want.

Exactly! Said more succinctly than I've ever been able to.

Wahoo's 4th patrol tells us a lot about the ROF over time. Aside from telling us what the ROF was it also tells us that it changes quite a bit over time. The first engagement has a ROF of 17 seconds per shell fired while the second engagement has a ROF of 30 seconds per shell fired. The ROF for the first engagement is nearly twice as fast as that of the second. Something is happening there that is making ROF drop significantly for the second engagement. Whether it's the effect of the ready-use ammo container or whether it's just fatigue is unclear, but whatever it is, it's definitely there. For our purposes we don't need to know exactly what it is - we only need to know that it's a factor. I'm choosing to factor it in by using an average of both engagements in order to get what I call a sustainable ROF - i.e. a ROF that generally applies to all lengthy engagements.

The reason I choose to model RFB on a lengthy engagement is that short engagements are by their nature short, so the player will be inconvenienced by a slower rate of fire for a shorter period and the likelihood of air attack coming out of a short engagement is very small indeed - the sub will be done and submerged by the time the engagement is over no matter whether the sub fires 40 shells in twenty minutes or 40 shells in ten minutes. Time wasted in RFB = ten minutes - not even time to fuel a plane to investigate a distress call. The alternative is to make the mod conform to short engagements, which would mean that longer engagements were unrealistically short, and since it's a long engagement that's a lot of time that's saved that wouldn't be saved in a real battle. That represents time where the enemy is calling for help and maybe getting it in the form of an air attack. If a sub spends an hour pummelling a ship with 120 shells that sub is more at risk from air attack than a sub that spends only 30 minutes firing those 120 shells. Time saved in a mod that uses a ROF based on ready-use ammo and no fatigue = 30 minutes - more than enough time for the Japanese to get off a distress call, fuel a plane and send it to investigate. In RFB you're in real danger from that plane, but if the mod used the ready-use ammo ROF you'd avoid that danger and get an unrealistically safe use of the deck gun.

LOL!

IT SURE DOES MATTER!

AVERAGE IS NOT MAXIMUM ANY WAY YOU SLICE IT.

And for you to say in one post that I am not using it because of the ammo locker and to say in this post that it does not matter scoffing off what you stated in the last just defies reality again.

Besides all that. If you impose an averge as maximum you will almost never get the average you imposed making it FUBAR.

FUZZY MATH.

Now thats all said.

I support your modifications as you see them because it is your choice to do so.

I don't support your mathmatics however.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

The problem with a longer engagement, or even making assumptions on the second part of a single engagement is that there is so much data we lack. Perhaps they fired while lying to in the first, moving in the second. Or perhaps they only fired lying to, and in the second they spent most of the gunnery period moving to a new position relative to the target (and not shooting). In the second the actua period of shooting could have been less with a far higher ROF. Who knows.

I actually think short engagements are the best numbers, because the chances for confounding factors added in is reduced. At least to determine actual combat ROFs.

The fact that the game lacks complexity in gunnery, and that the real combat ROF might need to be tweaked to get realistic results is separate from determining the actual combat ROF, IMO.

We could all come to the conclusion with some new data that the ROF should be 5 rpm to be realistic in terms of counting rounds coming out of the gun, but then determine that for a realistic simulation of said gunnery in SH4, we need to drop it to 3 rpm, otherwise the ease of gunning results in too many hits.

The two issues are obviously related, but they are indeed separate. Knowing the actual best ROF is useful just to know it, particularly if the guns ever get fixed to be more realistic.

<S>

tater

Then you need to go back to school. You can have an average maximum ROF and that's what RFB's deck gun is based on. The average comes from Wahoo's engagements on her 4th patrol. The maximum comes from the fact that Wahoo is the maximum ROF of any sub I've ever seen evidence for.

As for fuzzy math, if RFB is using fuzzy math I'd rather go with fuzzy math than no math at all - and that's what you're suggesting when you talk about the distance from the ammo store to the gun being 12ft, the gun "not being far" from the conn, the ammo locker being located under the mess, the scuttle going thru the pressure hull into the mess, the fact that there's no need for a large bucket brigade inside the sub, the so-called 'fact' that the ammo ready locker provides shells instantly (I suppose the ammo moves at the speed of light from the locker to the gun - somehow WW2 US subs had ammunition designed to overcome Albert Einstein's equations - perhaps using his idea of 'spooky action at a distance' to dematerialise shells in the ready-use locker and rematerialise them in the breech) or the 5 inch 25 submarine mounted gun not needing a plug in the barrell. Those 'values' don't give us a mathematical equation. In fact nothing you've posted gives us a mathematical equation that we can use to arrive at a ROF value. As I said, I'll go with my 'fuzzy' math over your nonexistent math any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Nope it is you that needs some schooling. Stop provoking and I will do the same.

It is not. It is based on average rate of number of shells fired over an entire gun egagement and forces you into that rate all the time for each shell fired.

FUBAR.

How about you show us your equations. I mean I see a lot of criticism here but I don't see any calculations or any rationale behind any alternate ROF. Anyone can say "Oh that's BS!" but saying it and proving it are two very different things.

So put up or shut up.

Whereas if you use a "spec" max ROF (say 8-9 rpm) that will virtually always be the ROF in SH4. There will be no log of a long SH4 engagement where the real, instantaneous ROF is 9 rpm, but the average is 2.5. Won't happen. If it takes 27 shots to sink a given ship, the engagement will last 3 minutes with 27 shells expended, virtually every time (maybe a couple slop to get the range).

A shortish engagement at a high (for logged battles) ROF is the best way to go, IMO. For SH4 simulation purposes, an average figure is certainly best compared to a "spec" figure, and having it a little on the high side makes sense since crew quality can drop it.

The guys at BuOrd who made the spec ROF figures also said the Mk14 didn't run deep, and the Mk6 exploder worked just fine ;)

tater

So what would you do? If you have the answer I'd like to see it. How would you use a maximum ROF without compromising the realism in longer engagements where it clearly wasn't possible to sustain the maximum ROF? How would you use a maximum ROF and still subject the sub to the danger of air attack in an engagement that used more than 90 shells when the maximum ROF allows a sub to break off an attack long before a real sub could possibly have done so?

The answer is that you can't. You see there are no easy answers in simulation building. There are only compromises. But some compromises give more overall realism while some give less, and the most obvious answer isn't always the most realistic. We can't use maximum ROF because although it seems that it would be realistic on its surface, it gives very unrealistic results if we look deeper into the problem. As I said before:

But let's see your solution to this dilemma. Clearly you think you have the solution whereby a fast ROF can give realistic results in all situations. Let's see how you make a sub with a maximum ROF sub stick around on the surface for a half hour waiting for that air attack after it has finished firing 120 shells.

Oh and in case you're thinking that the game is not that complex - that ships don't call for help and aircraft don't respond, not so. They do.

I take it back...

Such drama :doh:

Hey, guys, I hate to sound like a broken record, but...

Unless anyone has actual numbers to perform math on, let's NOT attack Beery and let's not get into heated arguments.

NEON, 'fuzzy' or not, Beery's math is the only math shown in this thread so far. Please please please provide numbers relating to time spent and shots fired, or else let's all give it a rest. Calling it fuzzy without giving concrete examples is not very helpful.

The existance of an ammo locker is not news, and as Beery's said several times, the sim doesn't let you set a variable RoF. It's just one number.

Is anyone familiar with how science is done in the real world? It doesn't get done by scientists sitting around quibbling, it only progresses when numbers (data) are collected and then the math done on them is documented carefully. Once the method is shown, as Beery has done, and conclusions drawn from said method and data, it is up to any other scientists to raise objections in a serious manner. This initially consists of people criticizing the method and the data, but in order to actually make a serious point, the criticizers must go get more data and then proceed to perform math on them in a carefully documented manner. (edit) That often takes hard work. Humans I think are much more prone to armchair argument rather than going out and hunting down dusty patrol records :)

It doesn't help to say "Oh your method is flawed" over and over without providing more data.

Torpex, you stated that there were patrol records available at certain libraries/repositories, but none that you knew of available online. It seems to me that without valid patrol records, we have nothing more to discuss! :damn: