[REL] Real Fleet Boat - Page 67

tater · 06-25-07, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

We've all seen the movies of US subs ejecting all kinds of debris through the torpedo tubes. SH1 included it.

I'm pretty certain that the Americans never had any kind of actual decoys such as the German 'Bold', but on the other hand there's no provision for throwing out junk either. True or not, I say go for it!

That Barb example seems pretty compelling on "real" decoys, in fact multiple types (bubblers and "swim out beacons"). The dates are the only tricky bit. I'll see if it's in Roscoe.

czACha · 06-25-07, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beery

I think I'm going to put the decoys back into RFB. The only thing that's making me a bit reticent about doing so is the fact that I've not seen any evidence from early war subs. If someone could find some evidence of decoy use in 1942-43 that would be great.

Beery pleas reconsider to make Japs sensors slightly better also. It is not bad to have a bit reality together with some tension when attacking convoys. It is very accurate to the reality that we are forced to use our periscope as seldom as possible. I am saying that because I have noticed that in RFB mode they can hardly detect my periscope. Even if it is core version set up it would be better to rise AI detectors up.

tater · 06-25-07, 11:39 AM

I actually agree on the sensors, and I am certainly not one to exaggerate the abysmal state of IJN ASW practices to be better than they were. Reading Blair, it is clear that while the prosecutions were ultimately ineffective the large majority of times (as Beery has accurately pointed out with his goals in terms of survivability), they still made frequent attacks on our submarines. They bombed and spotted periscopes. They almost always reacted to torpedo wakes, and DCed around the launch point.

I have been playing with a mod to make the AI spot my periscope. I get spotted if I don't maintain discipline regarding how much I keep the scope up, but if I am careful, I'm pretty safe. This is very realistic, IMO. I find myself raising the scope manually, making a quick circuit, then trying to rush my observation. I would argue that the time to detection of an up scope should probably be longer than strictly realistic since we have to do things that crew would do in RL. The seconds it takes to click back tot he right page in the manual, etc.

tater

Beery · 06-25-07, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by czACha

Beery pleas reconsider to make Japs sensors slightly better also...

I really need solid evidence for making such a change because Japanese destroyers are much more effective at sinking our subs than they were in reality. A good simulation of submarine combat must often sacrifice detail in order for the big picture to be valid. In order to implement a change that goes against the 'big picture' reality I need hard evidence that Japanese sensors could routinely detect periscopes at the ranges we expect them to. Part of the problem is that a game can only model a few variables, so sensors basically act in a very simple manner. Lacking the complexity of reality the game's sensors will give a small range of results whereas reality would have a very wide range of results.

Having said that, even if such evidence is forthcoming, making Japanese sensors better may be a very bad idea because the state of the AI is such that destroyers, if they spot us, are putting depth charges right on top of us even when we're deep and this aspect of the game is, as far as I'm aware, hard-coded. Since this is the case, making sensors even slightly better may cause the game to generate 100% casualties every time the enemy drops depth charges. This would hardly be a step towards greater realism. Currently the poor sensors are the ONLY things that counterbalance the HUGE unrealism of the AI's superhuman aim.

Job #1 of RFB - the 'prime directive' if you will - is aimed at getting simulated careers with tonnages and survivability matching the reality as close as possible. The details of how we get there are important too, but only as long as they fit within the parameters imposed by the 'prime directive'. In SH3 we found that destroyer sensors were often very difficult to make truly realistic because any increase in effectiveness had a huge effect on survivability - an effect that could not be overcome. If the sensors can be adjusted so that they just spot periscopes at an historical rate I'm very willing to include such a mod, but not if it means that the sensors always immediately spot a periscope at a certain distance, or if it means that sensors get better in other ways.

Taurolas · 06-25-07, 11:45 AM

Regarding decoys....

Has anybody seen "Up Periscope" with James Garner (was on at the weekend in the UK) in this they used a decoy which generated bubbles... now i know its only a film but i'm sure that was an actual sub they were in, im convinced it was a Balao...

question is was that original equipment from 1943-45 or a later addition when it was filmed in 1959?

06-25-07, 12:03 PM

So, what exactly decoys do in SH4? They reduce enemy sensors effectiveness?

Beery · 06-25-07, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julius Caesar

So, what exactly decoys do in SH4? They reduce enemy sensors effectiveness?

In effect, yes. And as long as we can be sure that submarines had some sort of countermeasure throughout the war putting them back into the mod is almost essential because of the insanely high accuracy rate of depth charge attacks in the game. At this point I'm willing to do almost anything to reduce the AI's uncanny ability to get depth charges onto the sub.

Actually I'm probably going to put them back in based on the evidence I've seen already, but it would be perfect if there was some definitive example of some kind of noisemaker being used in 1942-43.

LukeFF · 06-25-07, 12:31 PM

Beery, here's one for you: the max torpedo firing depth for the fleet subamrines is too shallow. Fleetsubmarine.com states:

Quote:

One of the more interesting wartime developments was the Mark-27 "Cutie" homing torpedo. This had a number of problems, but could be effective under the right circumstances. It was very slow, which limited its utility against anything doing more than 8.5 knots. It was also non-discriminating. The rules dictated firing no shallower that 150 feet, since the torpedo simply homed in on the loudest noise in the area. Too shallow, and that might just be the submarine that fired it.

That 150 feet translates to 45.72 meters, which is about 15 meters deeper than what the game currently allows. This is easily fixable - just go to the /Data/Submarine directory and look for the NSS_*.cfg files located in each submarine folder. It'll be the line that reads TorpLaunchMaxDepth.

tater · 06-25-07, 12:47 PM

Regarding the deepest torpedo firing depth. There was an account in Silent Victory of a sub that sustained a bad DCing at over 300 feet depth. It jarred a torpedo in tube 8, and it ran hot in the tube. The boat had to come up to 150 feet to try and shoot it out since they couldn't fire torps below that depth (presumably for pressure reasons with the outer doors open).

Beery, regarding the "prime directive:"

I agree 100%. That said, a primary reason for tonnages being too high in game is that we do not operate under the same constraints that they did in RL. It's easier to make a great TDC setup when you can observe and tweak the TDC at will since they are incapable of seeing a periscope in the stock game.

FWIW, in the thread about making planes see periscopes (also happened all the time according to Blair), I tried a modification suggested by Jace. I now have escorts spot me if I am not careful, and charge. I have yet to die because of this, I just need to pull the plug, and not get cocky. It's still a little sensitive, but I find I get DCed far more often now, though to no more effect. I can honestly say that I only get killed by my own stupidity/aggressiveness.

All that said, it needs a great deal of testing, and the AI levels might also need to be tweaked. Part of my desired campaign rework would be to have the sensors, etc set so that competant AI was, well, competant. Right now unless the AI is elite, you are unlikely to ever be killed underwater---but if an elite or 2 gets on top of you, you are in big trouble. Ideally, we'd have the middle of the road AI spotting you, but since their depth accuracy, etc would be lower, they'd be less effective. That to me is the ultimate goal (based on my reading): escorts should attack more often, but to little effect.

czACha · 06-25-07, 01:01 PM

Beery I am a fan of your job I understand you well but please read this.
I think that we discussed too little about that topic – I mean reality of course. Only few points here from my sources:

American sub training programs were one of the best in this war and it was getting better and better.
Special retirement conditions makes the duty very lucrative for sailors enough to have them more than needed – best of them were going to the war patrols.
American officers were very VERY careful during making attacks, hardly observe results of the attack by periscope, usually come deep counting seconds and hear on explosion, after hours observation from distance on radar, and making conclusions from observing shape on radar panel, first, if it is moving or not and second observation every half hour is it getting smaller – means the ship superstructure is going underwater. On the very beginning of the war they were even told by authorities to make attacks only using sonar, not using periscopes, to avoid detection from the air for example – STUPID BUT TRUE.
Attacks were usually made from distances in spread way using almost all of torpedoes loaded in tubes with out having to shoot twice. Or if they had to do this they load up tubes underwater and trying to set up ambush spot again couple hours later.
Avoiding small sampans not to be detected – some of them were just or as well watchers equipped with radio.
After all these and more safety procedures subs spend quite considerable amount of time in the deep being bombarded – more or usually less effective.

Our – players – manners of the attack are totally different that above. I was never so cautious as that.
What I am trying to say, the game should punish players for being not so cautious and I am afraid that these is not reflected good enough in the game.

CaptainCox · 06-25-07, 01:28 PM

czACha, that's some interesting reading there man

Cheers for sharing!

Beery · 06-25-07, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater

Right now unless the AI is elite, you are unlikely to ever be killed underwater---but if an elite or 2 gets on top of you, you are in big trouble...

My problem is that I often get fatal damage while deep underwater and the one time I tracked it back to find out what level of AI it was, it turned out it had to be a low or medium-rated AI. I couldn't believe it, so I rechecked twice assuming that I'd miscalculated my position, but no high-level AI were anywhere near. This was a DE that spotted my periscope at something like 2000+ yards and homed in on my position right away. Two quick depth charge runs later and I was struggling to get to the surface with my boat filling with water and falling apart. This was after I changed RFB so that elites were rarer.

Maybe I just suck at avoiding depth charges.

tater · 06-25-07, 02:08 PM

I've never had any ship react to my periscope in stock SH4.

Note that I judge this by the fact that before I made the mod, ships never once shot at the scope. Now if they spot it, they shoot (which I have also read about).

There are some odd things with the AI, to be sure.

What I'd like to see is for elite AI to be really scary, and also really really rare. I think the competant AI should work you over then leave. The vets should hold you down for hours.

I'm not super great at avoiding the escorts, I'm just cautious. I fire torpedos, and pull the plug, for example. I have auto reloading off, and I wait til I'm down and safe before reloading. I rarely get to make more than one attack.

One thing that helps on the TF attacks is that I have upped their speeds. 15 is the minimum you'll every see a TF in my campaign. Here and there they will be balls-out in the high 20s (I have it so at some zig-zags, they will just to high speed with a % chance of skipping a pile of ZZ waypoints and running straight and FAST instead). As a result, the escorts (even vet/elite) will work me over, but they only let the TF get si far before they pour on the coal and head back. It's effective though since doing an end-around even with a TF ZZing at 18 knots is hard.

switch.dota · 06-25-07, 03:22 PM

Any DD will open fire on the periscope in calm seas. I've taken (extremely minor) damage from a DD some 1500m away that had spotted my scope while I was on approach for a convoy.

I've also had DD's shoot at my scope from some 500-800m in moderate seas. In heavy sewas I usually don't need to worry about keepign my scope down.

All this is while using a variation of the Trigger Maru sensors configs.

In stock game, I've had a DD head right for my scope - 1000-1500m away (outside his active sonar range) - while I was stopped at periscope depth, silent running on. His clumsy DCing led me to believe he wasn't really high up in the ranks (he totally missed me on 3 consecutive runs before I got below thermal).

tater · 06-25-07, 03:27 PM

Hard to tell if a DD heads right for the scope if he saw it or not, frankly. When they see it, they shoot at it, if they aren't shooting I'm not conviced they "see" it visually. I think shooting is tied to VISUAL detection. heading straight for the scope is a function of radar, IMO. Since many of the DDs in stock SH4 have air search radar, and the air search is broken and shows surface contacts that would explain it.

DDs will head for a radar contact but not lay guns with it. If they actually see it, they WILL shoot.

06-25-07, 01:01 PM	#1000
czACha Seaman Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 36 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Beery I am a fan of your job I understand you well but please read this. I think that we discussed too little about that topic – I mean reality of course. Only few points here from my sources: American sub training programs were one of the best in this war and it was getting better and better. Special retirement conditions makes the duty very lucrative for sailors enough to have them more than needed – best of them were going to the war patrols. American officers were very VERY careful during making attacks, hardly observe results of the attack by periscope, usually come deep counting seconds and hear on explosion, after hours observation from distance on radar, and making conclusions from observing shape on radar panel, first, if it is moving or not and second observation every half hour is it getting smaller – means the ship superstructure is going underwater. On the very beginning of the war they were even told by authorities to make attacks only using sonar, not using periscopes, to avoid detection from the air for example – STUPID BUT TRUE. Attacks were usually made from distances in spread way using almost all of torpedoes loaded in tubes with out having to shoot twice. Or if they had to do this they load up tubes underwater and trying to set up ambush spot again couple hours later. Avoiding small sampans not to be detected – some of them were just or as well watchers equipped with radio. After all these and more safety procedures subs spend quite considerable amount of time in the deep being bombarded – more or usually less effective. Our – players – manners of the attack are totally different that above. I was never so cautious as that. What I am trying to say, the game should punish players for being not so cautious and I am afraid that these is not reflected good enough in the game.

06-25-07, 01:28 PM	#1001
CaptainCox Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: A Swede in Frankfurt am Main Posts: 1,897 Downloads: 4 Uploads: 0	czACha, that's some interesting reading there man Cheers for sharing! __________________ DOWNLOAD MY MODS HERE

06-25-07, 11:39 AM	#993
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	I actually agree on the sensors, and I am certainly not one to exaggerate the abysmal state of IJN ASW practices to be better than they were. Reading Blair, it is clear that while the prosecutions were ultimately ineffective the large majority of times (as Beery has accurately pointed out with his goals in terms of survivability), they still made frequent attacks on our submarines. They bombed and spotted periscopes. They almost always reacted to torpedo wakes, and DCed around the launch point. I have been playing with a mod to make the AI spot my periscope. I get spotted if I don't maintain discipline regarding how much I keep the scope up, but if I am careful, I'm pretty safe. This is very realistic, IMO. I find myself raising the scope manually, making a quick circuit, then trying to rush my observation. I would argue that the time to detection of an up scope should probably be longer than strictly realistic since we have to do things that crew would do in RL. The seconds it takes to click back tot he right page in the manual, etc. tater

06-25-07, 11:45 AM	#995
Taurolas Medic Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Notts UK Posts: 163 Downloads: 167 Uploads: 0	Regarding decoys.... Has anybody seen "Up Periscope" with James Garner (was on at the weekend in the UK) in this they used a decoy which generated bubbles... now i know its only a film but i'm sure that was an actual sub they were in, im convinced it was a Balao... question is was that original equipment from 1943-45 or a later addition when it was filmed in 1959?

06-25-07, 12:03 PM	#996
Julius Caesar Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	So, what exactly decoys do in SH4? They reduce enemy sensors effectiveness?

06-25-07, 12:47 PM	#999
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Regarding the deepest torpedo firing depth. There was an account in Silent Victory of a sub that sustained a bad DCing at over 300 feet depth. It jarred a torpedo in tube 8, and it ran hot in the tube. The boat had to come up to 150 feet to try and shoot it out since they couldn't fire torps below that depth (presumably for pressure reasons with the outer doors open). Beery, regarding the "prime directive:" I agree 100%. That said, a primary reason for tonnages being too high in game is that we do not operate under the same constraints that they did in RL. It's easier to make a great TDC setup when you can observe and tweak the TDC at will since they are incapable of seeing a periscope in the stock game. FWIW, in the thread about making planes see periscopes (also happened all the time according to Blair), I tried a modification suggested by Jace. I now have escorts spot me if I am not careful, and charge. I have yet to die because of this, I just need to pull the plug, and not get cocky. It's still a little sensitive, but I find I get DCed far more often now, though to no more effect. I can honestly say that I only get killed by my own stupidity/aggressiveness. All that said, it needs a great deal of testing, and the AI levels might also need to be tweaked. Part of my desired campaign rework would be to have the sensors, etc set so that competant AI was, well, competant. Right now unless the AI is elite, you are unlikely to ever be killed underwater---but if an elite or 2 gets on top of you, you are in big trouble. Ideally, we'd have the middle of the road AI spotting you, but since their depth accuracy, etc would be lower, they'd be less effective. That to me is the ultimate goal (based on my reading): escorts should attack more often, but to little effect.

06-25-07, 02:08 PM	#1003
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	I've never had any ship react to my periscope in stock SH4. Note that I judge this by the fact that before I made the mod, ships never once shot at the scope. Now if they spot it, they shoot (which I have also read about). There are some odd things with the AI, to be sure. What I'd like to see is for elite AI to be really scary, and also really really rare. I think the competant AI should work you over then leave. The vets should hold you down for hours. I'm not super great at avoiding the escorts, I'm just cautious. I fire torpedos, and pull the plug, for example. I have auto reloading off, and I wait til I'm down and safe before reloading. I rarely get to make more than one attack. One thing that helps on the TF attacks is that I have upped their speeds. 15 is the minimum you'll every see a TF in my campaign. Here and there they will be balls-out in the high 20s (I have it so at some zig-zags, they will just to high speed with a % chance of skipping a pile of ZZ waypoints and running straight and FAST instead). As a result, the escorts (even vet/elite) will work me over, but they only let the TF get si far before they pour on the coal and head back. It's effective though since doing an end-around even with a TF ZZing at 18 knots is hard.

06-25-07, 03:22 PM	#1004
switch.dota Captain Join Date: May 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 492 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Any DD will open fire on the periscope in calm seas. I've taken (extremely minor) damage from a DD some 1500m away that had spotted my scope while I was on approach for a convoy. I've also had DD's shoot at my scope from some 500-800m in moderate seas. In heavy sewas I usually don't need to worry about keepign my scope down. All this is while using a variation of the Trigger Maru sensors configs. In stock game, I've had a DD head right for my scope - 1000-1500m away (outside his active sonar range) - while I was stopped at periscope depth, silent running on. His clumsy DCing led me to believe he wasn't really high up in the ranks (he totally missed me on 3 consecutive runs before I got below thermal).

06-25-07, 03:27 PM	#1005
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Hard to tell if a DD heads right for the scope if he saw it or not, frankly. When they see it, they shoot at it, if they aren't shooting I'm not conviced they "see" it visually. I think shooting is tied to VISUAL detection. heading straight for the scope is a function of radar, IMO. Since many of the DDs in stock SH4 have air search radar, and the air search is broken and shows surface contacts that would explain it. DDs will head for a radar contact but not lay guns with it. If they actually see it, they WILL shoot.