RFB Questions

[MarkCt]

I just finished a career with TMO and RSRDC and was getting ready to start again and I thought about trying RFB. So I DL'ed the manual and read through it to get some idea how it differs from TMO. I was hoping that some of the other Capt's here could give me some of the highlights or even links that show some of the differences between the two. I tried using the search but maybe I worded it wrong but it was hard to really find anything, ( at least on an iPad ).

Thanks for the help guys.

[Sailor Steve]

If you've done well with TMO you might find RFB a little too easy. TMO actually makes certain things harder than real life, so you can't predict the AI's moves quite so easily. RFB is aimed for as much realism as possible, which makes it more predictable if you're good at these things. I'm not, and RFB suits me best.

On the other hand, you might like it. I'm not good at judging people's reactions either.

[BigWalleye]

As I understand it, TMO makes enemy ASW more aggressive and more efficient as a compensation, because it also makes it easier to find targets. RFB tries to keep both target density and ASW at historical levels. As a result, it is easier in RFB to make an attack and survive, but harder to find something to attack. RFB emphasizes the "hunter" in Silent Hunter, and it is possible to spend whole patrols searching an enpty ocean until you figure out the right places to look. Or you can go to the historical record and read where and how the successful subs found their prey, and learn that way. RFB (with RSRDC) is accurate enough that you can do that.

According to its creator Ducimus, TMO is intended to be more of a game than a pure historical simulation. There is more action, both offensive and defensive. Ducimus said he was trying for 80% historical accuracy and 20% playability. YMMV.

TMO does play more like an ATO sim, in that there are more targets and the ASW is more deadly. From what I have observed on this forum, most gamers who came to SH4 from ATO sims like SH3 seem to find it more to their liking, because the tactical environment is similar to what they are used to.

Briefly, and again this is just my opinion, RFB is about the hunt, TMO is about the fight. Historically, the challenge in the Pacific was the hunt, but TMO intentionally gives the player more action. Which you prefer depends entirely on what you want from the game.

[captgeo]

Originally Posted by BigWalleye

As I understand it, TMO makes enemy ASW more aggressive and more efficient as a compensation, because it also makes it easier to find targets. RFB tries to keep both target density and ASW at historical levels. As a result, it is easier in RFB to make an attack and survive, but harder to find something to attack. RFB emphasizes the "hunter" in Silent Hunter, and it is possible to spend whole patrols searching an enpty ocean until you figure out the right places to look. Or you can go to the historical record and read where and how the successful subs found their prey, and learn that way. RFB (with RSRDC) is accurate enough that you can do that.

According to its creator Ducimus, TMO is intended to be more of a game than a pure historical simulation. There is more action, both offensive and defensive. Ducimus said he was trying for 80% historical accuracy and 20% playability. YMMV.

TMO does play more like an ATO sim, in that there are more targets and the ASW is more deadly. From what I have observed on this forum, most gamers who came to SH4 from ATO sims like SH3 seem to find it more to their liking, because the tactical environment is similar to what they are used to.

Briefly, and again this is just my opinion, RFB is about the hunt, TMO is about the fight. Historically, the challenge in the Pacific was the hunt, but TMO intentionally gives the player more action. Which you prefer depends entirely on what you want from the game.

I agree with the above perfect comparison

[Arlo]

I've been enjoying TMO immensely but the description given for RFB has me interested in trying it again. The first time I tried it I experienced some glitches and I think there was something about the look of the crew that didn't sit well with me, immersion-wise. Might be me.

Thanks for the write-up.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by BigWalleye

As I understand it, TMO makes enemy ASW more aggressive and more efficient as a compensation, because it also makes it easier to find targets. RFB tries to keep both target density and ASW at historical levels. As a result, it is easier in RFB to make an attack and survive, but harder to find something to attack. RFB emphasizes the "hunter" in Silent Hunter, and it is possible to spend whole patrols searching an enpty ocean until you figure out the right places to look. Or you can go to the historical record and read where and how the successful subs found their prey, and learn that way. RFB (with RSRDC) is accurate enough that you can do that.

According to its creator Ducimus, TMO is intended to be more of a game than a pure historical simulation. There is more action, both offensive and defensive. Ducimus said he was trying for 80% historical accuracy and 20% playability. YMMV.

TMO does play more like an ATO sim, in that there are more targets and the
ASW is more deadly. From what I have observed on this forum, most gamers who came to SH4 from ATO sims like SH3 seem to find it more to their liking,
because the tactical environment is similar to what they are used to.

Briefly, and again this is just my opinion, RFB is about the hunt, TMO is about the fight. Historically, the challenge in the Pacific was the hunt, but TMO
intentionally gives the player more action. Which you prefer depends entirely on what you want from the game.

Not really, that is true if you just play TMO which has its own campaign, but most players play TMO+RSRDC which has the same target density as RFB+RSRDC.

I used to play RFB exclusively and only switched to TMO a year ago because TMO integrates Nisgeis's 3d TDC/radar mod. At the beginning, there was a bigger difference between TMO and RFB, but as the mods have evolved, they have converged. In actual gameplay, I can't say I have noticed a substantial difference in how the two play out.

The best thing to do is to try both out and figure out which one you prefer. I have modded my TMO instal, keeping what I like and importing elements from RFB, so I get the best of both mods.

[BigWalleye]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

I can't say I have noticed a substantial difference in how the two play out.

The best thing to do is to try both out and figure out which one you prefer.

Help me out here, BR. More than one noob has asked for guidelines to aid in making a choice. If there is no longer any substantial difference between TMO and RFB, what would someone base their preference on?

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by BigWalleye

Help me out here, BR. More than one noob has asked for guidelines to aid in making a choice. If there is no longer any substantial difference between TMO and RFB, what would someone base their preference on?

Here is what I noticed in terms of major differences between the two mods, RFB 2 and TMO 2.5:

Things TMO does better:

-includes Nisgeis 3dTDC/radar mod;

-less deaf sound man. For some reason the TMO soundman seems to have an easier time tracking ships, not much farther out than RFB, but enough to notice;

-various graphical tweaks, i.e. better visuals in various areas, helmsman in the CT, etc.

Things RFB does better:

-more refined crew management. RFB had done some work on this, TMO basically uses stock, although this has little impact on actual gameplay;

-more accurate depth gauges. TMO uses 600 feet gauges on all boats for gameplay purposes. On my instal, I switched all boats, except Balao/tench to 450 feet gauges;

-more refined sinking mechanism, i.e. NYGM. Unfortunately, it was only done on merchants and destroyers. All other warships use the stock sinking mechanism.
TMO uses a modified stock sinking mechanism. I modded this further on my instal;

Things which are neutral:

-AI, visual sensors. different, but not harder. On the surface, you get spotted in certain conditions in TMO were you would not be in RFB or vice versa, so it averages out. Underwater, I have not noticed a difference;

-Torpedo Duds. Slightly different in both, but overall level is the same. You get more prematures in TMO, more duds in RFB.

-fuel. TMO gives you more fuel upfront, but if you follow Duci's guidelines, it works out more or less the same.

obviously YMMV.

[Hinrich Schwab]

Originally Posted by BigWalleye

Historically, the challenge in the Pacific was the hunt...

This is not entirely accurate. Historically, the challenge in the Pacific was neither the hunt nor the fight, the challenge was proving to the Bureau of Ordinance that the Mark 14 torpedo was a poorly designed, under-tested piece of garbage and was the reason why so many early skippers failed miserably in the sub war. Paralleling this was the forced usage of obsolete and nonsensical doctrine, such as the acoustic-only engagement, that had no practical basis in wartime tactics. Once the torpedo issue was finally resolved, America began emulating some of Germany's sub tactics, particularity the night surface attack, to score even more success. In my observation, TMO's purpose is to challenge the expert subsimmer. The AI is above and beyond even the best the IJN had to offer in ASW. RFB is about historical emulation and appears easier by comparison because of the aforementioned disparity in target density.

[MarkCt]

Yeah I think the best thing is to just jump in and try it. I would add RSRDC to it as I really enjoy history. If it proves too easy then JSGME is one click away. For me there were times TMO was pretty hard. You get yourself into what you think is a perfect position, being really quiet and all of a sudden a destroyer picks you up.

[BigWalleye]

Originally Posted by Hinrich Schwab

Historically, the challenge in the Pacific was neither the hunt nor the fight, the challenge was proving to the Bureau of Ordinance that the Mark 14 torpedo was a poorly designed, under-tested piece of garbage and was the reason why so many early skippers failed miserably in the sub war. Paralleling this was the forced usage of obsolete and nonsensical doctrine, such as the acoustic-only engagement, that had no practical basis in wartime tactics.

Hinrich, what you say is certainly true. The OP, however, was looking for someone to help him by making distinctions between TMO and RFB. I offered the conventional wisdom about those differences, i.e, hunt versus fight. Bilge Rat says that those differences are a thing of the past: "In actual gameplay, I can't say I have noticed a substantial difference in how the two play out." If this is true, what then do you see as the principal differences remaining between the two? Can anything be said beyond "Try them both?"

[Hinrich Schwab]

Originally Posted by BigWalleye

Hinrich, what you say is certainly true. The OP, however, was looking for someone to help him by making distinctions between TMO and RFB. I offered the conventional wisdom about those differences, i.e, hunt versus fight. Bilge Rat says that those differences are a thing of the past: "In actual gameplay, I can't say I have noticed a substantial difference in how the two play out." If this is true, what then do you see as the principal differences remaining between the two?

To be fair to the argument, I have not tried TMO. I read the manual and I disagreed with the premise of making the game harder for its own sake. I prefer historical realism over this "arcade style" challenge. The issue is that the mods can only do so much because the source code is still locked down by Ubi. Historically, the IJN ranged from laughably bad to unnervingly competent with its ASW abilities. Not knowing whether or not you had an inexperienced or incompetent escort skipper versus a Bungo Pete creates a sufficiently tense and realistic environment. Likewise, even RFB makes a few historical errors, particularly with depth charges.

Can anything be said beyond "Try them both?"

Agreed.