What Mods?
 

I have a laptop that I just picked up. I has a good dedicated GPU, so I can play SH4. I'd like to mod it. What mods do you recommend?

Doing some searches, I see that RSRD is a must have for convoys and TF that are more realistic.

But other mods I'm unsure of. Trigger Maru or Fall of the Rising Sun? Which is better?

I'm kinda in over my head. I have the Steam version of SH4.

I would defiantly recommend T.M.O.2.5, although I'm not sure if it or any mods will work with the Steam version. If you can afford it I would suggest getting a DVD version that has Uboat missions addon through SUBSIM LINK TO AMAZON. With that version you can mod to your hearts :salute:

Mods work with steam, though it's a bit tricky to set up.
On my computer anyways, you need to install JSGME into:
C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\SteamApps\Common\Silent Hunters Wolves of the Pacific

And yes, get the U-boat missions version, it adds fixes that you will probably need for most mods. Even if you're not interested in the U-Boat stuff :03:

TMO is on the more realistic side of things. FOTRS is more eye candy type of deal. I like a lot of action instead of seeing one ship every so often so I use FOTRS. It basically makes everything look good, environment, etc.

Some other fun mods to check out are the modern submarines. The modders have done a excellent job at making them look like the real deal.

Definitely get Large Address Aware. That game was written for older machines and has a limited ability to access RAM. LAA allows the game to access more RAM. The info with it explains much better in decent detail.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/down...o=file&id=3634

I'm running Operation Monsoon now. My normal setup is:
TMO
RSRDC
MaxOptics
plus a few other minor sound and graphics mods I feel like using.

A lot of people like Traveller's Mod and Optical Targeting Correction.

Thanks so much for the replies. I'll be setting this up shortly and look forward to playing and learning.

If you are not at least somewhat computer savvy, you would probably be better off not trying to patch or mod the Steam version of SH4. Go to Amazon, spend $10 and get the publisher's version, which is easier to work with. Patch it to v1.5 whether you want to play U-boats or not. The game fixes are worth it.

TMO is neither more "realistic" nor particularly historically accurate. Ducimus' intent, if I may paraphrase, was to make a more challenging game which had a certain amount of historical flavor. But one of his purposes, IIRC, was to make a game which would remove the certainty that comes from knowing how the Pacific submarine war actually went. RFB is more historical (although hardly perfect), but too tame for some. For example, in early 1942, going deep works and the IJN always sets their DCs shallow, as every skipper knew from reading patrol reports. In TMO, you will have no such assurance of safety - every escort skipper is potentially Bungo Pete - but to compensate, there are a lot more targets. Try them both, and see which one fits your gaming desires.

I don't disagree with anything else you said, but I don't know why you said this. There is no mechanism in the game which limits the depth of depth charge attacks. You might be harder to detect in RFB, but the depth charges can reach any depth. (Unfortunate, imo.)

I have never examined the game mechanics of depth charge attack tactics, so I will take what you say as true. But through multiple engagements, I have observed this: When I play RFB in early-war, I can go deep and count on being safe. Later in the war, the same tactic doesn't guarantee safety. When I use this tactic in TMO any time in the war, I will get pounded. How do you explain the differences?

If you can't get this download to work try the process described in this thread: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=202192

I also play the Steam version, with U-Boat Missions. I am running TMO, RSRDC, OTC, and Traveller's Mod.

I think the early-war part explains that. This along with the much better sensors of TMO escorts.



I think the game mechanics here are a mess. Really, you should be able to go deep and escape, at least early on. Later, it should be harder. Even at that, subs usually escaped either on the surface, or by going deep and staying there. (Along with evasive turning when necessary.) In TMO, I've read that gamers like to roller-coaster their way up and down to evade, which works, but isn't a tactic a real sub could use.

It seems like having depth charges, with defined detonation times or depths, would have been easy to code. I wonder why they didn't. Didn't they do proper research?

In SHCE, in the game options you could select harder AI where the historical limit of depth charge attacks was removed. This would have worked well, I think.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are telling me. If there is no depth variation in depth charge attacks, why would I be safe - reliably and consistently - in 1942 by going deep, but not in 1944? What's different? Are you saying that in '42 I would be just as safe at a shallower depth?

What I mean is that the charges explode at the depth you are detected at. If they think you are at 100 ft. they explode at 100 ft. If they think you are at 500 ft. they explode at 500 ft.

The safety comes in because they cannot detect you well in '42, but do a much better job in '44, that's all.

Of course, it takes time for the charges to drop, so there is always some benefit to being deep; you have more time to steer away from the danger zone.

Keep in mind they don't know exactly where you are (at least they shouldn't). There will be lateral error in their patterns.

*** Edit *** :oops:

I looked at some of the depth charge files. I'm not really sure what I said was true. Maybe there is a limit as to how deep they can go. Someone said there was no limit, but I've never tried to verify this myself. Hmmm..... someone should know about this.

TorpX, thanks for the information. IAC, the effect is still the same. Going deep is an effective early-war tactic. I haven't looked into the depth charge attack model, but the outcomes seem to be consistent with what I have read.