[Kpt. Lehmann]

Originally Posted by Kilhmar

I have been contemplating on making a more realistic (IMHO) mod to GWX, with special emphasis on anti-air capabilities and damage adjustments to small calibre guns. I will have to see if I can find the time…

With regards to your complaints about machine guns versus U-boats:

Hull integrity loss to "smaller caliber weapons" is not unique to GWX. Infact GWX mitigates it rather well IMHO... without turning the U-boat into a "Tiger Tank."

SH3 does not distinguish between the pressure hull, and vital components mounted/stored/attached to points outside the pressure hull.

As a result, some hull integrity is lost in any attack damages vulnerable components, like the deck guns, flak guns, periscopes, snorkel components, GHG or KDB hydrophone pickups, air intake trunking for the diesels, spare torpedoes, ballast tanks, fuel oil saddle tanks, the UZO/scope heads, etc. Therefore, there is no way to protect the hull integrity of the U-boat from machine gun fire without also making these historically vulnerable items immune as well.

It's the result of a hard-coded design decision, and we've chosen not to mess with it given that fixing the vulnerability issue that has existed since stock Silent Hunter III would cause new invulnerability issues.

These are our justifications for not fiddling with vulnerability to MG fire in GWX in part, and explains why we did not worry about how much armor is penetrated by 0.50-caliber MG fire at various ranges, distances, and impact angles.

A .50 caliber round does not need to fully penetrate the pressure hull or component thereof, to cause a loss of structural integrity, or other serious problems relating to the optimal functionality of a U-boat.

A U-boat's function is not to remain on the surface in an effort to duke it out with aircraft or any surface unit that may cause harm to said U-boat. Whether or not you feel that any given element as modded in GWX is "unrealistic" or not is in actuality irrelevant. Arguably, GWX functions to illicit an appropriate response in the player causing him/her to think more like an actual U-boat commander... "I may win any individual engagement... but aircraft are extremely dangerous and I must dive."

It is after all, a U-boat simulator... not a flight sim.

Aircraft gunnery as presented in GWX causes the desireable effect of suppressing flak crews, to assist aircraft as they run in to drop bombs, aerial DC's (which were largely non-functional in stock SH3), fire rockets, and/or 57mm cannon shells that serve to cause the "REAL" damage to your boat in GWX. Whatever 'hull integrity damage' you suffer from strafing is quite negligeable in the face of follow-on attacks by other ordnance.

In testing, the aircraft damage models were generally designed to withstand only 1.5 attack runs against a a player U-boat mounting only 2x Flakzwillings sitting in a flat sea (an UNUSUALLY stable firing platform/condition) ... with just a smidge of additional durability for multi-engined aircraft... and any additional armor plate they might have carried. (Which was comparatively minimal indeed given the need for reduced weight in favor of range endurance of patrol aircraft.) Aircraft usually DID survive an attack run in the face of AA fire... probably owing to the fact that the U-boat is not a very stable firing platform... at least in comparison to an aircraft.

Momentarily disregarding 'historical facts' and discounting as to whether or not one source or another should be deemed valid OR 'definitive' as you appear to present with your postings... a game does not/cannot work much at all like real life. If we were to fully take into account real life matters, we'd need mainframe computers to run the simulation... to include such things as mettalurgical reactions to temperature, corrosive effects of seawater, etc etc etc.

Personally, I see the U-boat damage model as being quite forgiving as it is in GWX.

Given the limitations of a game system, you will find it a necessity to make small compromises in light of farther reaching effects. It would appear that you are not aware that the smallest caliber weapon in SH3, and subsequently GWX, is the 20mm. It is this same 20mm that is used universally in SH3/GWX for everything that may employ a 20mm weapon.

Additionally, what you fail to recognize is a massive and complete revision of the air coverage in SH3/GWX (for the sake of historical accuracy) and the composition of air attacks against player U-boats. Did you play stock SH3 for any length of time? If you have, then you can recall attacks from 12 Wellingtons at a time... 6 Catalinas...etc etc. Air coverage/attack composition certainly plays into the same equation as weapon damage values and damage modelling.

I think the most important thing that one can attempt to achieve, is to cause an historical behavior and and attempt to reproduce historically plausible/logical survival probabilities, disregarding what settings (historically accurate or not) you need to adjust to obtain those end-effects. Generally speaking, the GWX development team and testing crew share this view.

Furthermore, the Silent Hunter devs (to their credit) left us an adjustable skeleton that modders can manipulate. As 'simulator players' can, and often do become their own worst enemies by 'rivet counting'... if you feel you can do better, by all means do so.

We often help other modders and/or non-modders reach their aims. Though quite often we do so in private these days... as that is our way following the cumulative fatigue of 2 1/2 years of 'debating' different aspects of 'realism' as we have modded/researched/implimented it in GWX.

(If you feel our sources aren't viable... read the bibliography section of the GWX manual.)

At one time or another, virtually every aspect of GWX has come under fire as being 'unrealistic' for 'this reason' or 'that reason.' Still, individuals come to this particular thread with a sense of entitlement and a disrespectful attitude... to demand that we fix it for them or give them specific information on how to mod a given element when there is an entire forum here in which to deliberate such matters. Though we are often quite happy to assist players to fully enjoy their installation... it is not our responsibility to do so. Neither is it unreasonable for us to first explain our methodology when it comes to why we did one thing or another. Often understanding a thing, is better than further file modifications that will likely generate undesireable side-effects in unexpected places elsewhere in the game.

We've given the best of ourselves in an effort to model the entire U-boat war... not just The Battle of the Atlantic. Without a doubt, each and every GWX user will find one element or another that they aren't happy with... reasonably or unreasonably. We've addressed each important aspect logically and have struck a balance with platform limitations that we must accept.

Before continuing onwards to discuss such matters as the manufacturing disparities of various ammunition, I invite you to start your own thread... and to discontinue hijacking this one.

You have stated your opinions and carried out your arguments... and we have modelled matters in-game to meet our equally valid interpretation of available data resources... in light of game limitations that you have not accounted for.