[REQ] "improved" Torpedo Reliability MOD

CaptainKobuk · 07-27-07, 10:06 PM

There are modding tools to do the adjustments called the "tweaker" program and it's "tweak files". Everyone who's modded SH4 a lot has tweaked some files.

I'd mod the torpedo reliability myself, but i just can't produce a perfectly reliable MOD because i don't understand how to interpret some of the numbers in the various variables.

I'd go for a 50% increase in reliability of the MK14's for starters. As they exist in the game now, sometimes at the start of an early campaign in 1941 i'd have up to 9 torpedo failures. Out of the 24 fish loaded in a Sargo. Which is i think an improper simulation of reality. The computer randomized duds and sometimes clumps them in bunches that are statistically slightly obsurd.

Did 3/8ths of MK14's ever go bad on any sub in WWII? That's almost half the fish gone rotten. What would be the point in even setting out to see with that much bad fish aboard? I think duds should be cut at least in half in total occurances for early torpedoes. I've read the stats on the later torpedo models. They don't need fixing because their reliability is very high to begin with in the stock game. This could therefore be primarily an early MK14 torpedo issue.

It's not fair to completely turn off duds in the gameplay options. Because some duds can happen and it really was a major factor to consider in WWII as sub captains often did have to send two fish when one would do, just to be extra sure of the success against critical target like attacking Destroyers.

nattydread · 07-27-07, 10:19 PM

9 out of 24 may not be the norm, but its not all that absurd either. Sometimes you just have to accept bad luck for what it is...bad luck. Im willing to bet you have much better patrols and Im sure you will still will in the future. You gotta take the lumps with the good and dont see one lump as if its the normal everyday thing.

Suck it up and go out on the next patrol and sock it to the enemy.

Bando · 07-27-07, 10:19 PM

I think you're wrong. Early war the skippers would be happy if 1 out of 10 exploded near the target.
I don't remember which skipper this was but this was after about a year into the war when he saw a tanker sail by. Out of 16 fishes, the first one hit as intended, 14 duds, the last one was taken back to base to investigate. The way CCIP modded the torpedoes reflects the frustration of the RL skippers just a tiny bit. They ( those RL skippers) were blamed by High Command their aiming was what's wrong. Go figure......

If anything, the torpedoes we use in game, even with CCIP's torpedo mod are too reliable.........

CaptainKobuk · 07-27-07, 10:31 PM

Oh ok i guess i had to learn some history.

A none issue apparently. Solved soon enough anyways by the better more powerful fish. By 1943 is what i've read elsewhere on our forum.

If there's a fair simulation of reality then it's really not very frustrating. Life is life. Apparently the early MK14 were corporate scam trash. When honest weapons procurement people won over the situation we then got good torpedoes.

PeriscopeDepth · 07-27-07, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainKobuk

Did 3/8ths of MK14's ever go bad on any sub in WWII? That's almost half the fish gone rotten.

As you've probably read by now, they would be incredibly lucky if half of their fish worked before '43.

PD

tater · 07-27-07, 11:36 PM

70% failures is probbaly closer to reality. It's somewhat confounded by doctrine that had them aiming the fish deep anyway.

tater

CaptainKobuk · 07-28-07, 12:46 AM

Until 1943, is using only the MK10's advisable then? I think i read elsewhere on this Forum that's advisable.

MK10 range is under 4000. I think it was 3200. That means no more unloading off on distant battleships. While the MK14's are junk, 4 fired at up to 7000m takes out a BB usually.

Whatever. It's not that critical an issue. I think because of the added range capability
i will still stock the MK14 just to have the chance to engage the heavy jap Warships. That's the most fun in the game. Carriers are pretty rare with the improved campaign mod. Strategically a sub captain would load the MK14's just for the chance to sink such an incredibly high value target.

tater · 07-28-07, 01:06 AM

Yeah, CVs are indeed very rare.

I think I need to add a few more, actually.

PeriscopeDepth · 07-28-07, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainKobuk

Until 1943, is using only the MK10's advisable then? I think i read elsewhere on this Forum that's advisable.

It would be...depending on how you play. I like to play under the same restrictions of the actual captains. They didn't have the luxury of just loading up on Mk 10s because they knew the early 14s were broke (they certainly suspected though). They were repeatedly told nothing was wrong with the 14s (in fact, they were told it was their poor aim that was at fault) and were ORDERED to use the magnetic detonator (which just didn't work).

PD

AirborneTD · 07-28-07, 02:43 PM

Plus the fact that the MK 10 would not always work in place of a 14. Something about the connections for the gyros (or something, I'll have to dig it up).

07-27-07, 10:06 PM	#1
CaptainKobuk Helmsman Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 107 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	[REQ] "improved" Torpedo Reliability MOD There are modding tools to do the adjustments called the "tweaker" program and it's "tweak files". Everyone who's modded SH4 a lot has tweaked some files. I'd mod the torpedo reliability myself, but i just can't produce a perfectly reliable MOD because i don't understand how to interpret some of the numbers in the various variables. I'd go for a 50% increase in reliability of the MK14's for starters. As they exist in the game now, sometimes at the start of an early campaign in 1941 i'd have up to 9 torpedo failures. Out of the 24 fish loaded in a Sargo. Which is i think an improper simulation of reality. The computer randomized duds and sometimes clumps them in bunches that are statistically slightly obsurd. Did 3/8ths of MK14's ever go bad on any sub in WWII? That's almost half the fish gone rotten. What would be the point in even setting out to see with that much bad fish aboard? I think duds should be cut at least in half in total occurances for early torpedoes. I've read the stats on the later torpedo models. They don't need fixing because their reliability is very high to begin with in the stock game. This could therefore be primarily an early MK14 torpedo issue. It's not fair to completely turn off duds in the gameplay options. Because some duds can happen and it really was a major factor to consider in WWII as sub captains often did have to send two fish when one would do, just to be extra sure of the success against critical target like attacking Destroyers.

07-27-07, 10:19 PM	#3
Bando Commodore Join Date: May 2007 Location: Where you don't see me Posts: 607 Downloads: 23 Uploads: 0	I think you're wrong. Early war the skippers would be happy if 1 out of 10 exploded near the target. I don't remember which skipper this was but this was after about a year into the war when he saw a tanker sail by. Out of 16 fishes, the first one hit as intended, 14 duds, the last one was taken back to base to investigate. The way CCIP modded the torpedoes reflects the frustration of the RL skippers just a tiny bit. They ( those RL skippers) were blamed by High Command their aiming was what's wrong. Go figure...... If anything, the torpedoes we use in game, even with CCIP's torpedo mod are too reliable......... __________________ Regards, Bando

07-28-07, 02:43 PM	#10
AirborneTD Engineer Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 204 Downloads: 23 Uploads: 0	Plus the fact that the MK 10 would not always work in place of a 14. Something about the connections for the gyros (or something, I'll have to dig it up). __________________ "You know, you might get surrounded." "We're paratroopers, Lieutenant. We're supposed to be surrounded." --Band of Brothers

07-27-07, 10:19 PM	#2
nattydread Captain Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 498 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	9 out of 24 may not be the norm, but its not all that absurd either. Sometimes you just have to accept bad luck for what it is...bad luck. Im willing to bet you have much better patrols and Im sure you will still will in the future. You gotta take the lumps with the good and dont see one lump as if its the normal everyday thing. Suck it up and go out on the next patrol and sock it to the enemy.

07-27-07, 10:31 PM	#4
CaptainKobuk Helmsman Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 107 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Oh ok i guess i had to learn some history. A none issue apparently. Solved soon enough anyways by the better more powerful fish. By 1943 is what i've read elsewhere on our forum. If there's a fair simulation of reality then it's really not very frustrating. Life is life. Apparently the early MK14 were corporate scam trash. When honest weapons procurement people won over the situation we then got good torpedoes.

07-27-07, 11:36 PM	#6
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	70% failures is probbaly closer to reality. It's somewhat confounded by doctrine that had them aiming the fish deep anyway. tater

07-28-07, 12:46 AM	#7
CaptainKobuk Helmsman Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 107 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Until 1943, is using only the MK10's advisable then? I think i read elsewhere on this Forum that's advisable. MK10 range is under 4000. I think it was 3200. That means no more unloading off on distant battleships. While the MK14's are junk, 4 fired at up to 7000m takes out a BB usually. Whatever. It's not that critical an issue. I think because of the added range capability i will still stock the MK14 just to have the chance to engage the heavy jap Warships. That's the most fun in the game. Carriers are pretty rare with the improved campaign mod. Strategically a sub captain would load the MK14's just for the chance to sink such an incredibly high value target.

07-28-07, 01:06 AM	#8
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Yeah, CVs are indeed very rare. I think I need to add a few more, actually.