[REL] RFB/Real Fleet Boat for 1.5

[tater]

Note that the stock campaign has no cargo set for any ship.

Some cargoes are more reactive to hits than others. If a damage system is based to sink with 1-2 hits most of the time on an empty ship, they will likely blow to pieces with the first deck gun round of they have some cargo...

Just saying.

[IronPerch]

Just had a testdrive with the patch and i have to say that i love this mod! Thanks guys!

Has anyone else noticed that after the patch the integrated PE4 works way more better or was it just problem with my installation? I don't mean just the flickering screen problem.

[Nisgeis]

Originally Posted by tater

The data is out there, Alden's book (Naval Institute Press) lists every single submarine attack with lat/long, fish fired, hits, claimed results, claimed tonnage, and actual tonnage and results (even names of targets) in most cases.

Is it actually in print?

[Gorshkov]

I reinstalled game and applied RFB+patch. Test mission and what I noticed: Medium Old European Composite Freighter (5186 tons) sunk after 2 hits but Large Old Split Freighter (8192 tons) sunk after SEVEN hits! In sum Sardaukar67 was right. There is complete fortuity in sinking ships with RFB!

Congratulations, guys! I leave you and your beta now and for foreseeable future.

Cheers!

[Fish40]

Just started a fresh patrol with the patch, and already after only two days out of port I hit rough seas. I love the new wind sounds Thanks guys!

[banjo]

Just started a patrol with the patch and came across a Hog Island Steamer and sank it with one torpedo under the stack. Maybe that would have happened before the patch, I dunno, but I was happy.

I haven't yet noticed any difference in the enviroment--I will take a closer look when back in the game.

I still can only access the Return to Course command from the nav map. I believe the patch notes said we'd be able to access that command from anywhere. Anyone else have this? Also, I still have the hull damage indicator which is okay with me, but I think I read that it is supposed to be gone. Again, anyone else seeing this? If not, maybe I need a new install like Rockin was saying.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Nisgeis

Is it actually in print?

No, but Amazon has 12 used available starting at just $24.

It's pretty good in general, but if anything overestimates hits. I have been comparing warship TROMs with what Alden has, and the hits on the TROMs (more definitive, IMO) are sometimes lower.

tater

[Fish40]

Originally Posted by banjo

Just started a patrol with the patch and came across a Hog Island Steamer and sank it with one torpedo under the stack. Maybe that would have happened before the patch, I dunno, but I was happy.

I haven't yet noticed any difference in the enviroment--I will take a closer look when back in the game.

I still can only access the Return to Course command from the nav map. I believe the patch notes said we'd be able to access that command from anywhere. Anyone else have this? Also, I still have the hull damage indicator which is okay with me, but I think I read that it is supposed to be gone. Again, anyone else seeing this? If not, maybe I need a new install like Rockin was saying.

Same for me with the return to course Command, but the damage meter is gone for me.

[Rockin Robbins]

The hardest ship on the ocean to sink is an empty tanker. Why? Because it essentially is a double-bottomed ship. You can fill it full of holes and it just keeps on steaming. I read (was it in Thunder Below?) a captain of a sub grousing just like certain people have about RFB. Except he was grousing about real tankers. Damn.....can't find it. OK, there's more than one way to skin a cat. How about Silent Victory?



That is called evidence. The evidence shows complainers' baseless conclusions about tankers to be based on movies, not real life. This is real data. It shows certain people are wrong. The RFB crew does not contain the people who are wrong. Page 487 attempts to exculpate Admiral Christie with a fanciful explanation of his dream of a reliable magnetic exploder as the answer to the tanker problem. In other words, tankers were so damn difficult to sink that only fixing the stupid magnetic exploder would allow any success. This justified any number of unsuccessful firings because somebody would eventually stumble on the solution if they just stuck with the lousy device. This fanciful argument, only underlines and highlights the extreme difficulty of sinking tankers.

Checkmate, mates!

Do I need to prove you complainers wrong on any other items or will you grant myself and the RFB crew some credibility? I suggest you call their bluff on the sampans. Maybe they don't know anything about sampans. Make their day.
Humble pie served with a smile.

[tater]

There was one attack on an AO (18k tons) in Sept. 1943 that took 10 claimed hits and didn't sink. That was the only tanker in the war that took so many, though. Another took 6 and lived. All others that survived an attack took fewer than 5 hits. All. 2 AO/XAOs took more than 4 claimed hits and lived in the entire war.

That's the trouble, though, a DM needs variability in a coded world.

In the case of RFB, taking 10 hits should be possible, but if you are not using RSRD, then NONE of the tankers have fuel in them as cargo. None. I'm not sure if RSRD does, either—the trouble is that they blow easily with the fuel cargo (least with stock damage), so they might have been left default. That's the trouble with campaigns, stuff like that needs to be added explicitly, and it might need to differ for each damage model used (before there was NSM, and TM, plus stock). I know in my campaign, I did not add "fuel" to all tankers cause I didn't want them all to blow up with 1 hit.

If indeed the trouble is with the stock campaign, or any campaign with no fuel as cargo, that might well be the issue and the RFB DM is then modeling the empty ship very well.

Nothing is in a vacuum in this game...

tater

[Rockin Robbins]

Now a tanker full of crude is almost as difficult to sink as an empty tanker. Crude is lighter than water, so dense it won't burn and so viscous that it doesn't leak out quickly.

There was an advantage with the crude oil of the Dutch oil wells the Japanese most prized. It was of such quality that it would burn, but not explode. Still a crew had to abandon a burning ship, and the resulting hulk was no longer useful, even if it did not sink.

Now, if you were lucky enough to encounter a tanker full of gasoline, as Barb did in Thunder Below..... KABOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!

Witnesses from another sub in the wolfpack estimated the fireball as 500 yards in diameter--MUCH larger than any fireball in SH4. THAT would be exciting.

[tater]

With the 2 exceptions I mentioned above, no japanese tanker took more than 4 hits and stayed afloat in the entire war, I just checked.

[Rockin Robbins]

Was Blair totally daft then? I have heard that whispered and sometimes shouted, but this is quite interesting real conflict between the sacred Silent Victory and apparent reality, both Atlantic and Pacific. Most fascinating!

[Gorshkov]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

I don't know how the US torpedo payload compares with these of German torps, but I think the following can be interesting.
I can't say I reviewed the ~3000 ships sunk but it seems most went down with one torpedo.

I can help you: German torps were fitted with PBX but US with black powder. Anyway in RFBeta all torps are fitted with black powder to assure proper game balance!

[Orion2012]

Originally Posted by tater

With the 2 exceptions I mentioned above, no japanese tanker took more than 4 hits and stayed afloat in the entire war, I just checked.

Just exited my patrol where I easily sunk a medium tanker with 2 hits. Neither of them in the engine compartment and it promptly sunk in under 2 minutes.

Originally Posted by Gorshkov

I can help you: German torps were fitted with PBX but US with black powder. Anyway in RFBeta all torps are fitted with black powder to assure proper game balance!

MK 10 torpedoes were fitted with TNT. Mk 14's and I believe all subsequent models were fitted with torpex.

Wikipedia defines torpex as the following:

Torpex is a secondary explosive 50% more powerful than TNT by weight.[citation needed] Torpex is composed of 42% RDX, 40% TNT and 18% powdered aluminium. It was used in the Second World War from late 1942. The name is short for 'Torpedo Explosive', having been originally developed for use in torpedoes. Torpex proved to be particularly useful in underwater munitions because the aluminium component had the effect of making the explosive pulse last longer, which enhanced the destructive power. Torpex was used only in critical applications, e.g. torpedoes and the Upkeep, Tallboy and Grand Slam bombs. It was also used in the Operation Aphrodite drones.

German torpedoes contained the following mixture of chemicals.

SW18: 50% TNT, 24% HND, 15% Aluminum
SW36: 67% TNT, 8% HND, 25% Aluminum
SW39: 45% TNT, 5% HND, 30% Amonium Nitrate, 20% Aluminum
SW39a: 50% TNT, 10% HND, 5% Amonium Nitrate, 35 % Aluminum
HND = Hexanitrodiphenylamine an oxidizing agent that cannot be dissolved in either water or alcohol. Decomposes violently at high temperatures.


I'm assuming the SWXX is for the warhead model although I'm still looking for which torpedo had what warhead.