SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Woof1701 · 01-07-07, 05:27 PM

@Tikigod
Thanks again. Exactly my point, although the comparison maybe is a little extreme

@bigboywooly

The problem with realism and historical accuracy is of course, that it's hard to achieve. Even though I understand you point I believe your reasoning in this case is flawed:

In the beginning of the war, most boats that went out actually DID encounter large amounts of ships and sank them and only returned home after they expended their ammo. How else do you explain the large tonnages some skippers accumulated in a very short time. Take Kretschmer for example. He started the war in a Typ II B and then got a Typ VII B (U-99). With this boat he sank 44 (of his total 46) ships in less than nine months between July 1940 and March 1941, totalling over 270.000 tons in only 8 patrols! When you split that up it's 5.75 ships per patrol with an average tonnage of about 33.750 tons per patrol and roughly 6000 tons per ship. Considering that at that time the uboat force still had problems with duds and deep running torpedoes I'd say that's a pretty good exploit. And he is no exception. Take apart some of those records below and you will find that some captains even had single patrols with 50000 and more tons! Statistically the Top 34 uboat captains had an average of 18604 tons per patrol. And that's more that I can say about me with vanilla SH3 at 94% realism. Most captains however, didn't live long enough to celebrate their successes.

Source: http://www.uboat.net/men/aces/top.htm

For later in the war I partially grant you that many uboats didn't get near a convoy at all within a patrol and didn't sink anything in weeks or even in a whole patrol. But also don't forget that some of those captains and crews were completely new to the job. Kids that had to succeed the masters who were either dead, ran a flotilla, or were POWs. Those boys often were still struggeling to run their boats properly and had no experience in ASW evasion. They learned all that from books and from teachers who hadn't experienced the newest technology of the Allies.

However - no matter if late in the war or early in the war - I believe we players go to far greater risks there, since we can simply save the game or start a new one. An option which didn't present itself to a real uboat crew. We can also fast-forward the time and don't have to deal with ugly things like sickness, malnutrition, low morale, terrible hygiene, boredom, horror, foul weather and fear of death!
We also KNOW history and when to expect which technology leap of the allies. Many crews were simply caught by surprise and never lived to tell the tale of radar, hedgehog and acoustic torpedoes. And most importantly: in SH3 there's no Bletchley Park cryptographers decyphering my radio messages and directing hunter-killer groups to my last known position as soon as I stake out a convoy. Since that's the way the Allies got to find and kill most uboats from mid 1943 onwards I consider that a significant advantage on our part.
BTW: For malfuntions and sabotage we now have SH3 Commander

So I have no problem with being a little better that the best were in reality. After all we have it much easier than them, and playing a game - even a historically acurate one - should be fun as well, shouldn't it? Call me narrow-minded, but for me the fun's deminishing when I'm forced to put a spread of 2 to 3 torpedoes into a tiny little tramp steamer.

01-07-07, 05:27 PM	#14
Woof1701 Commodore Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Munich, Germany, Home of U-96 Posts: 633 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	@Tikigod Thanks again. Exactly my point, although the comparison maybe is a little extreme @bigboywooly The problem with realism and historical accuracy is of course, that it's hard to achieve. Even though I understand you point I believe your reasoning in this case is flawed: In the beginning of the war, most boats that went out actually DID encounter large amounts of ships and sank them and only returned home after they expended their ammo. How else do you explain the large tonnages some skippers accumulated in a very short time. Take Kretschmer for example. He started the war in a Typ II B and then got a Typ VII B (U-99). With this boat he sank 44 (of his total 46) ships in less than nine months between July 1940 and March 1941, totalling over 270.000 tons in only 8 patrols! When you split that up it's 5.75 ships per patrol with an average tonnage of about 33.750 tons per patrol and roughly 6000 tons per ship. Considering that at that time the uboat force still had problems with duds and deep running torpedoes I'd say that's a pretty good exploit. And he is no exception. Take apart some of those records below and you will find that some captains even had single patrols with 50000 and more tons! Statistically the Top 34 uboat captains had an average of 18604 tons per patrol. And that's more that I can say about me with vanilla SH3 at 94% realism. Most captains however, didn't live long enough to celebrate their successes. Source: http://www.uboat.net/men/aces/top.htm For later in the war I partially grant you that many uboats didn't get near a convoy at all within a patrol and didn't sink anything in weeks or even in a whole patrol. But also don't forget that some of those captains and crews were completely new to the job. Kids that had to succeed the masters who were either dead, ran a flotilla, or were POWs. Those boys often were still struggeling to run their boats properly and had no experience in ASW evasion. They learned all that from books and from teachers who hadn't experienced the newest technology of the Allies. However - no matter if late in the war or early in the war - I believe we players go to far greater risks there, since we can simply save the game or start a new one. An option which didn't present itself to a real uboat crew. We can also fast-forward the time and don't have to deal with ugly things like sickness, malnutrition, low morale, terrible hygiene, boredom, horror, foul weather and fear of death! We also KNOW history and when to expect which technology leap of the allies. Many crews were simply caught by surprise and never lived to tell the tale of radar, hedgehog and acoustic torpedoes. And most importantly: in SH3 there's no Bletchley Park cryptographers decyphering my radio messages and directing hunter-killer groups to my last known position as soon as I stake out a convoy. Since that's the way the Allies got to find and kill most uboats from mid 1943 onwards I consider that a significant advantage on our part. BTW: For malfuntions and sabotage we now have SH3 Commander So I have no problem with being a little better that the best were in reality. After all we have it much easier than them, and playing a game - even a historically acurate one - should be fun as well, shouldn't it? Call me narrow-minded, but for me the fun's deminishing when I'm forced to put a spread of 2 to 3 torpedoes into a tiny little tramp steamer.