RSRD Comments

[ColonelSandersLite]

I've been playing TMO + rsrd

Started with an S-boat out of the Philippines at the start of the war and now have a Balao class in September of 43.

So far 643,971 tons in 13 patrols. Two of those where me raiding Truk harbor netting over 100,000 tons each.

Discounting those two harbor raids, that averages to around 38,500 tons per patrol. The 5 s-boat patrols would have been much lower just due to the comparatively weak armament, which means the other 6 should be somewhat higher than the average.



The good:
Variety of stuff seems to be increased.

At the start of the war, I was heading home to pick up more gas and encountered 2 massive invasion fleets of around 50 ships one after another heading towards Lingayen gulf. I was, of course, duly impressed and this is probably the reason I've stuck with rsrd so long.

I like the concept that the convoys are generated from historical record and will be where they really where at any given time.



The bad:
I've encountered exactly 3 convoys during the whole war. The previously mentioned 2 at the start and a small one heading towards one of the Soloman islands.

I'm not saying the convoys aren't there to be found where they're supposed to be, however, this campaign generates so many single ships just zipping around that I always run out of torpedoes *and* deck gun ammo before I can even get to the areas the convoys are at.

Because of this, I can honestly say that I've only been attacked by ASW forces a whole 1 time, and that was during a harbor raid. The only damage I've taken was when I seriously screwed the pooch in a surface engagement against, I think, a large modern composite.

Call me crazy, but I get the feeling that something is fundamentally wrong with this picture. It's not my shooting, I rarely miss so I'm not using an excessive number of torpedoes/shells on each target. Just guessing here, but the single slow merchants running around probably need to be reduced by around 90%.

In addition, perhaps I'm alone in this, but I feel very strongly that the special operations add some much needed variety in game play.


Anyways, that's my 2c just for anyone that's interested.

Edit:
Come to think of it I've also encountered 2 "convoys" of around a half dozen sampans, but I don't really count those. Still took the renown bonus for radioing them in though...

[SteamWake]

Yea hate patrols like that.

Well you wanted 'realisim' hence the mods.

You got it

[ColonelSandersLite]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Well you wanted 'realisim' hence the mods.

You got it

So you're saying that the Japanese generally didn't convoy and that there where so many single ship targets afloat it's easy to score 40,000 tons of merchants every time you go out with absolutely 0 risk? Doesn't sound right to me.

Where in the world would the 20% casualty rate amongst submariners come from then I wonder?

[Zero Niner]

Can't really compare real life records with the tonnage one can get in the game. In the game on ealways gets the credit for a sinking, down to the correct class of ship whereas IRL it was a much more difficult process to claim credit. Combat flight simulations exhibit a similar characteristic.

About Japanese merchant convoys - afaik the Japs never realy favoured convoys until merchant sipping losses forced them to do so late in the war. Convoy duty & ASW duty I think was looked upon as an inferior assignment.

I suppose th eIJN perhaps had different concepts on how to prosecute ASW. Certainly they did not really adopt the tactics the Allies used such as hunter killer groups and to a certain extent escorted convoys.

From what I've read it's historically accurate to encounter lone ships in the early to mid-war years and merchant convoys, lightly escorted by Allied standards, later in the war.

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by ColonelSandersLite

Where in the world would the 20% casualty rate amongst submariners come from then I wonder?

Sadly, a lot of it was self-inflicted. 11 of the 52 US subs lost weren't due to the enemy. Three older US submarines sank in accidents in US controlled waters. USS Dorado and Sea Wolf were sunk by friendly forces. USS Tang and Tullibee by circular runs of their own torpedoes. Four (S-27, S-36, S-39, and Darter ended up stranded on reefs.

Plus, the Japanese observed how poorly US torpedoes performed early in the war and were lulled by it into a false sense of security. By the time the tide turned they were way behind the ball in the convoying and escort game although they tried desperately to catch up.

[MK2]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

Sadly, a lot of it was self-inflicted. 11 of the 52 US subs lost weren't due to the enemy. Three older US submarines sank in accidents in US controlled waters. USS Dorado and Sea Wolf were sunk by friendly forces. USS Tang and Tullibee by circular runs of their own torpedoes. Four (S-27, S-36, S-39, and Darter ended up stranded on reefs.

Plus, the Japanese observed how poorly US torpedoes performed early in the war and were lulled by it into a false sense of security. By the time the tide turned they were way behind the ball in the convoying and escort game although they tried desperately to catch up.

Let's not forget the ones that were lost to probable enemy mines. Mines accounted for subs as well.

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by MK2

Let's not forget the ones that were lost to probable enemy mines. Mines accounted for subs as well.

Very true. Those probably accounted for many US subs that were never heard from again that aren't mentioned in Japanese records. Regrettably, the stock game makes penetrating Japanese harbours and ports (especially the Home Islands ones) too easy, with no net defences or mines in place. US subs didn't really start penetrating the Inland Sea until 1945 with FM gear for mine detection.

[ColonelSandersLite]

Originally Posted by Zero Niner

Can't really compare real life records with the tonnage one can get in the game. In the game on ealways gets the credit for a sinking, down to the correct class of ship whereas IRL it was a much more difficult process to claim credit. Combat flight simulations exhibit a similar characteristic.

The problem with that logic is that it's *exactly* backwards. In games you get credit for exactly what you sink/shoot down (unless if fails to credit you, which happens on occasion), as you stated. However, in real life under claiming is not an issue, over claiming is. Check out this link: http://www.valoratsea.com/skippers.htm . Note that to a man, every person on that list over claimed. There where some notable patrols that where exceptions, but not careers to my knowledge. Same story in aviation as well. I don't know of any air force that has ever under claimed ever. I do know that in some air forces in certain conflicts over claiming was way out of proportion to reality though (especially over enemy lines). Understand that I'm not blaming any of these men, as there's just no blame to place really. The fog of war makes getting good battlefield intelligence difficult and "I'm positive I nailed him" or "no way he could survive that" is much more prevalent than "nah, I didn't hit ****" or "wow that's one tough SOB" is all I'm saying.

The thought that in the earlier part of the war, the Japanese did not favor convoy tactics is potentially a good point which I should probably do some research into. However, my assertion that there's too many single ships still stands on some rather simple logic. That logic being that it wasn't such an easy matter to score 40,000 tons per trip out (I play full switch in TMO BTW, so that includes a roughly 60% torpedo malfunction rate). If it had been like that your average sub commanders score would be something like 150,000 tons. Of course JANAC doesn't credit *anyone* with a score like that. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, submarines would sometimes return to base without even sighting a single enemy ship. This is something I just can't imagine when playing RSRD as the ocean is crawling with individual ships clipping around at 8-12 knots.


You guys just sent me on a pretty good research binge with some of your comments on losses though.

Originally Posted by Torplexed

11 of the 52 US subs lost weren't due to the enemy.

That still leaves 41 that where, which is quite a few men kia. Here's what I came up with, notes after.

Total listed 41

Lost to enemy aircraft 6 (15%)
Sealion 12/10/41
Grenadier 4/22/43
Wahoo 10/11/43
Barbel 2/4/45
Lagarto 5/3/45
Bullhead 8/6/45

Lost to enemy surface vessels 18 (44%)
Shark 2/11/42
Perch 3/3/42
Argonaut 1/10/43
Amberjack 2/16/43
Grampus 3/5/43
Triton 3/15/43
Pickerel 4/3/43
S-44 10/7/43
Sculpin 11/19/43
Capelin 12/9/43
Trout 2/29/44
Herring 6/1/44
Golet 6/14/44
Harder 8/24/44
Shark II 10/24/44
Scamp 11/11/44
Bonefish 1/18/45
Trigger 3/28/45

Lost to enemy surface vessels or aircraft 3
Cisco 9/28/43 (combined air and surface vessel attack)
Grayback 2/26/44 (combined air and surface vessel attack)
Gudgeon 5/11/44 (controversial)

Submarines Lost to mines 7 (17%)
Runner 5/43
Pompano 9/27/43
Scorpion 2/24/44
Robalo 7/26/44
Flier 8/13/44
Escolar 10/17/44
Albacore 11/7/44

Lost to mines or surface vessel
Swordfish 1/12/45

Lost to an enemy submarine
Corvina 11/16/43

Unknown causes 5
Grunion 7/8/42
Grayling 9/12/43
Growler 11/8/44 (probable enemy destroyer)
Kete 3/20/45
Snook 4/8/45 (probable enemy destroyer, possible enemy submarine)


These numbers came from a post war report, I think from 49. The ones that where split into a couple of categories (debated at the time of the report) and the unknowns I ended up looking into to see if more recent information could place their causes more definitively.

Ok, admittedly, there where only 2 losses to enemy surface vessels in 42. I'm guessing that this is because of the early war tendency of the Japanese ASW to set their depth charges way too shallow. The two subs they got, without looking into it further where probably in shallower water. Notice that this does not mean the Japanese didn't *try* anyways. In 43 the picture changes quite dramatically and notice that I did give RSRD a solid enough chance that I was into late 43 without having even seen an escort, much less getting depth charged by one.

Originally Posted by MK2

Let's not forget the ones that were lost to probable enemy mines. Mines accounted for subs as well.

Personally, I count mines as enemy action. Sure, it's not as if someone fired a projectile at a target, but the enemy did put that mine there.

Originally Posted by Torplexed

Those probably accounted for many US subs that were never heard from again that aren't mentioned in Japanese records.

Which is 3 submarines. If you notice the pattern in those dates, it's probable that maybe one was lost to mines, the others are unlikely. I'd be more willing to be that they where lost to attacks with no record, the records where lost/destroyed, or where operational losses.

Dorado is debatable as a friendly fire incident though. More modern stuff seems to place it as an operational loss. Hard to say though, wasn't ever found.

One final thought though. I noticed doing this research that 3 of the 4 submarines which ran aground where s-boats in 42. That's either one hell of a coincidence or there's some kind of reason for that. Anyone know?

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by ColonelSandersLite

One final thought though. I noticed doing this research that 3 of the 4 submarines which ran aground where s-boats in 42. That's either one hell of a coincidence or there's some kind of reason for that. Anyone know?

These strandings were mostly due to the nature of the hopelessly outdated charts US submarines started the war with. Not a few where labeled in the corner "from a survey by Capt. James Cook." (Cook did most of his surveys in the 1770s) The ancient S-Boats in question also didn't have decent fathometers and weren't equipped with radar yet. Of course, in the game our map and position are always GPS perfect and the only time we strand is when we are not paying attention to the little dots that mean islands.

Even when the Japanese fully instituted convoys in November 1943 they suffered from some woeful problems. Escort numbers were insufficient, radar radio and weaponry were all inadequate for the escorts available--not enough DC throwers, smaller payload depth charges. Coordination between escorts and the few land-based ASW aircraft was also extremely lacking.

One shocking aspect of the Japanese shipping system was the division among the Navy, Army and civilian services with the result that it was not unknown for civil merchantmen and service ships to sail outward together, the former empty and the latter full, and return with roles reversed. A fatal policy for a nation already short of merchant hulls.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by ColonelSandersLite

So you're saying that the Japanese generally didn't convoy and that there where so many single ship targets afloat it's easy to score 40,000 tons of merchants every time you go out with absolutely 0 risk? Doesn't sound right to me.

Where in the world would the 20% casualty rate amongst submariners come from then I wonder?

In short, yes, convoys were not the same type seen in the ATO. 2-5 ships. Some escorted. Some not. Later in the war the ships would hug the coast hoping the shallows would protect them. In some cases it did. Others not. The very large convoys did happen but certainly not like the ATO convoys. As for what Niki stated above. Bum torpedos, Japanese DC that went off to shallow as our submarines were much deeper until someone blabbed about it. As our torpedoes got better the sub dominated the Pacific. I thing RSRD is close as we will get to the real deal.

/agree with most of what's been said. After recently reading 'clear the bridge' it's apparent that life in the Pacific for the Americans was quite a different ballgame than what the U-boats experienced all around.

Early on O'kane even mentions something reflecting the 'inevitable conclusion of the war'.

That said, I do sympathize about the easy pickings, despite running these mods. There are several places one can go and sit...and just wait for the ships to roll into the choke points almost 'assembly line' syle. There have been times I simply passed up ships or saved and exited because it was 'tedious' having to get in position and start the tracking over again immediately after sinking several others...

It's that 'grass is greener' thing though, if the modders were to reduce the traffic to virtually nothing, folks would complain bitterly about 'nothing to shoot at' and 'not being realistic'... dunno what the answer is...

[AVGWarhawk]

The only answer is creating something with balance. I think RSRD does that. I have had days of patrolling and finding nothing. Then other patrols were all hell breaks loose. RSRD is certainly better than stock.

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

RSRD is certainly better than stock.

/agree 100% with that. I would not be playing this game without rsrd and tmo or rfb. It's no stretch to say that mods MAKE this game.

I was extremely disappointed at the released version, I guess that's why I'm not so charged up about SHV.









<------ btw I hate this current avatar...

[ETR3(SS)]

Whats wrong with Popeye?

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS)

Whats wrong with Popeye?

"Robin Williams"