Another one reporting for duty here:D
I edited the gun files for almost every ship i've done so far, changing range is a one minute job.
Accuracy isn't in the gun files but in a cfg file somewhere

Weird things those raiders.. strong enough to sink a cruiser but too weak to destroy a merchant without being sunk itself...

lol! So Darkfish, can you edit the AI guns?

The battle with Sydney was at such close range that both ships were almost assured destruction

Well I guess so..
I could change things like range/max angles/reloading speed/traverse speed etc. without much ado.
If you tell me what has to be changed on which gun I can do it for you.
All the playable guns on the ships I've made so far already have historical ranges etc.

BTW Merry christmas to you all:up:

Yes Feliz Natal!

The liberty ships guns need to be changed, they open fire way to early!

I just went up againist open with the Admiral Graf Spee, and the liberty open fire 1st! she dealt out a lot of fire, before my guns even took aim!!!

Request!
 

Okay, I was going to re-do the Atlantic convoys but I can't find my convoy route map!!! does anyone know of a online map/guide, or can anyone scan and e-mail me a copy of the Atlantic convoy map from SH3?

SH3 map: http://etnies.muskatli.hu/sh/faq/SH3_MAP.jpg

Also check http://www.convoyweb.org.uk/chart/chart.php. This site has got maps of daily positions of 64 different convoys. There's also a lot more to find on this site if you're looking for info on convoys.

Thanks!

In an era when most merchant ships were no more than 450-500 feet long there was very little space to install high-powered machinery. Without large, powerful engines there was no way for a merchant to achieve a reasonable speed while carrying enough armor to protect itself from heavy shells. If/when I play this mod I am going to try and engage armed merchantmen at a distance. If a convoy is escorted by anything larger than a corvette, I will probably leave it alone.

You can take on a single DD, may even two. My best was a Cleveland that I heavily damaged and it sank later, but I sank 45nm out of Surabaya

I recommend: either one DD, 2 DE's and 3 Corvettes

Hello again Ivank,
I was thinking about these mods,and let me please ask you why not to implement Carriers into TSWSM v2? This kind of units played a MAIN role in the Pacific,and their lack into the game as controllable platforms would not be historicaly accurate,even more,it was the beginning of development of the Naval Aviation Projection as you know.

Please,now that you are still on time tell me that you will translate the proposal to the rest of your team and you all will think about it.

My best Regards and Happy New Year.

Hey , at the moments simply put , carriers can not function properly within the game , all you could do would be to sit with your task force and potter about , you cannot launch planes or have any control like that so it would seem slightly pointless within the context of this game as it is at the moment to use them. If it does become possible to get greater function from these unit then implementing them may happen

I cannot see how proper carrier operations would EVER be possible in the SH4 engine.

The "airgroup" paradigm is fundamentally a bad one, and the game is completely incapable of modeling the real factors involved in carrier operations. Even a flight sim like Il-2 (or indeed ANY ww2 flight sim in existence, for that matter) cannot properly do CV air ops.

To be even a little realistic, it would require that the player:

1. Have to decide how to arm the planes, then fuel and arm them, then warm them up, then spot them for take off. The difference between USN and IJN doctrine need to be factored (warming up planes in the hanger then bringing them up for the IJN, mostly spotting planes entirely on the flight deck for the USN (early war we sometimes had to spot maybe 1/2 below to give SBDs more take off room). This whole proc\edure needs to take an appropriate amount of time We're talking maybe an hour anyway (+- with crew quality). During arming, ships are particularly vulnerable to damage because of all the avgas and ordnance all around the flight deck or hanger spaces. (can you say, "Midway?")

2. The CV must steam into the wind to launch OR recover aircraft. 30-60 minutes for take offs, probably, and more for recovery, particularly after a strike as damaged planes might limp in spread out over time. Any time you must evade risks losing aircraft in the air should they run out of fuel.

3. Take off and recovery need to be realistic, at least to the extent that the CV steams (likely at or near flank speed) in a straight line into the wind for the duration. This includes TO and recovery of Combat Air Patrols. (note that for the IJN, recon was usually tasked to CA-based float planes as they felt that recon flights from the CV weakened the air group).

4. Arming needs to be specific for ground vs ship targets as very different loads were used. GP bombs will damage ships, but not in the way the AP or semi-AP bombs used did. Also, the VT units (torpedo planes) were also tasked with level/glide bombing vs land targets.

5. Proper reloads of bombs, torpedoes, etc need to be carried for the aircraft. Meaning that the ship can run out. This happened to the US CVs in the Coral Sea since their earlier attacks on Tulagi expended most of their torpedoes for the VT squadron.

Note that I am assuming the air ops themselves are simplified. Even so, I see none of the above as remotely possible in SH4.

Bottom line is that CVs in SH are TARGETS, nothing more. Unmodified (by having their airgroups slashed) they are unrealistically powerful, too, as the entire CAG flies around to the limit of their range endlessly bombing stuff. They probably don;t even count hos many are shot down, lol. Properly for SH4, CVs need to have TINY airgroups (2-3 planes total per CV), and the planes need to be clones with vastly reduced range (since they represent the CAP or ASW patrol, and would stay within visual range of the TF at all times for the IJN (bad radios), and short radar range at most for allied CAPs).

I agree that carriers should not be a priority. It will take a dedicated carrier sim to factor in all of the complexities needed to make things interesting. I'd love to see Ubisoft fund such a project, but I'm not holding my breath.

me either, it would be an interesting venture, but it just doesnt seem fun enough to attract a large-scale chunk of the market...

but i agree with tater on all aspects, carrier ops seem downright impossible with the SH4 engine...you cant build castles on swamps

(haha, monty python)