Torpedo realism question...

[CWorth]

This question really does not fit in the Torpedo problems thread so I'll ask here.

My question is this...How realistic and historically accurate is it to be taking out merchants and other ships with single torpedo hits?

From all the accounts I have read the single torpedo seems to be the exception rather than the rule as it is in SH3.To me the "sweet spot" is unrealistic in a sense.I highly doubt a real UBoat commander could hit a particular spot on a ship with poinpoint accuracy as they do in SH3.

Your thoughts?

[cueceleches]

Hard to say...for the sake of realism, I always shoot 2 fishes in salvo mode but for the smaller ships as Coastal merchants and small merchants. As well as for some warships as DDs. For the bigger (C2, C3, T1, T2,etc) I do not like to risk the target to get just "disabled" (specially when it´s a convoy and once you shoot, picking your periscope out of the water is a risky thing, with some DDs and frigates looking for you), so 2 eels do make the job pretty well.

As well as you, almost all I´ve read about real U boat attacks, at least 2 ells were fired...sometimes even all the tubes emptied, but for some exceptions.

[CCIP]

Magnetics, which in SHIII are far more reliable and are used far more widely than in reality, were supposed to sink the ship on the first hit.

Otherwise, going by Doenitz's statistics from his memoirs, the number of torpedo hits vs. the number of ships sunk is just shy of 2:1. Keep in mind, there were many instances where 3-4 torpedoes were needed to sink ships.

Using impact torpedoes only in SHIII, I usually get closer to 2.5-3:1 :hmm:

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Magnetics, which in SHIII are far more reliable and are used far more widely than in reality, were supposed to sink the ship on the first hit.

Otherwise, going by Doenitz's statistics from his memoirs, the number of torpedo hits vs. the number of ships sunk is just shy of 2:1. Keep in mind, there were many instances where 3-4 torpedoes were needed to sink ships.

Using impact torpedoes only in SHIII, I usually get closer to 2.5-3:1 :hmm:

That would suggest that (if possible) that torp damage output in-game should be modded upwards a bit.

Of course if that is hard-coded info... I guess we must continue as always.

Any thoughts CCIP?

[Sturgeon]

My gut feeling (being completely ignorant of historical fact) is that the simulation is very accurate in the damage model, but it's us players that are not 'realistic'. Even though we fight it, we know in the back of our heads that we can start a new campaign if something goes horribly wrong. Therefore, we are tempted to use one torpedo on targets to maximize tonnage. If we were in the real situation, my bet is that most of us would fire two torps to ensure that no distress signal gets out or to ensure a quick engagement so we can start putting distance between us and any nearby warships ASAP.

Another issue is manual targeting vs. automatic targeting. With automatic targeting, we know the exact speed and AoB, so we have the highest confidence that we can target the vulnerable areas. I am just now learning manual targeting, and I am lucky if my shots hit half of the time. I am sure I will improve, but I will never be as accurate as the automatic targeting mode. So again, I am more likely to fire multiple torps in manual targeting mode.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Originally Posted by Sturgeon

My gut feeling (being completely ignorant of historical fact) is that the simulation is very accurate in the damage model, but it's us players that are not 'realistic'. Even though we fight it, we know in the back of our heads that we can start a new campaign if something goes horribly wrong. Therefore, we are tempted to use one torpedo on targets to maximize tonnage. If we were in the real situation, my bet is that most of us would fire two torps to ensure that no distress signal gets out or to ensure a quick engagement so we can start putting distance between us and any nearby warships ASAP.

Another issue is manual targeting vs. automatic targeting. With automatic targeting, we know the exact speed and AoB, so we have the highest confidence that we can target the vulnerable areas. I am just now learning manual targeting, and I am lucky if my shots hit half of the time. I am sure I will improve, but I will never be as accurate as the automatic targeting mode. So again, I am more likely to fire multiple torps in manual targeting mode.

Good points Sturgeon. As far as "game-balance" is concerned... it is an open-ended question. I am sure there will be more than one good answer.

I believe the exploration of the matter to be valuable.

[Beery]

Originally Posted by Sturgeon

My gut feeling (being completely ignorant of historical fact) is that the simulation is very accurate in the damage model, but it's us players that are not 'realistic'. Even though we fight it, we know in the back of our heads that we can start a new campaign if something goes horribly wrong....

An important part of good simulation design is compensating for this element. A really good simulation will make you want to fire as many torpedoes as real commanders did, despite the fact that you know it's only a game. One way to do it is to lessen the torpedo effectiveness so that it has a range of effectiveness that randomizes the resulting explosion - so that one torpedo might sink the ship as effectively as a real torpedo, or it might not. This has the effect of making the player want to fire more torpedoes at the target because he knows one torpedo alone may be ineffective.

[Dowly]

I like the way torps do damage to larger ships (C2, C3, tankers). On my current career, my patrol results are pretty realistic (highest tonnage around 8000 and 3 damged ships so far).

I play on Ironman mode on my current, so when I see a convoy that is escorted, I try to sneak in, fire a salvo and flee, usually just damagin the larger ships. When the destroyers leave the chase I`m usually so beated that I don´t even have balls to go and finish the damaged, dead in the water, ships.

[Sturgeon]

Originally Posted by Beery

An important part of good simulation design is compensating for this element. A really good simulation will make you want to fire as many torpedoes as real commanders did, despite the fact that you know it's only a game. One way to do it is to lessen the torpedo effectiveness so that it has a range of effectiveness that randomizes the resulting explosion - so that one torpedo might sink the ship as effectively as a real torpedo, or it might not. This has the effect of making the player want to fire more torpedoes at the target because he knows one torpedo alone may be ineffective.

But there is always the trade-off. Making torpedoes less effective than they really were would create the same complaints that the sim is not 'realistic'.

What is my ultimate point, you ask? I don't really know. Maybe I am saying that there are some areas of the sim that definitely need improvement, but this isn't one of them.

[oRGy]

Originally Posted by Beery

An important part of good simulation design is compensating for this element. A really good simulation will make you want to fire as many torpedoes as real commanders did, despite the fact that you know it's only a game. One way to do it is to lessen the torpedo effectiveness so that it has a range of effectiveness that randomizes the resulting explosion - so that one torpedo might sink the ship as effectively as a real torpedo, or it might not. This has the effect of making the player want to fire more torpedoes at the target because he knows one torpedo alone may be ineffective.

My first thought was that your idea is a terrible method to force aggression and simply wouldn't work. People would complain about how unrealistic and frustrating it is. Then someone would mod it.

My second thought is that SH3 simulates a certain randomisation of ship sinking times/damage anyway, due to its relatively complex model, so your idea doesn't really change anything important.

If you're a wannabe game designer, you have to think harder, and embrace the "know-its-a-game" aspect rather than skewing the technical simulation aspect unnaturally to force the player into playing your-way-or-the-highway.

For example, you should concentrate on how the player could feel an emotional/social interaction with his crew. This might encourage the player to be more careful of them. Think of a game like Black & White, for example. And you could introduce more role playing or narrative elements back at port, so that the player actually has a reason to make it back alive.

Or in regards to the above quote, two immediate fixes suggest themselves - first, that the "She's going down" message is removed and you would instead have to visually confirm that you sank a ship.

Second, you could limit saves so that you have to be at least 7.5km away from any enemy ship before you can save. This would leave the player without the lazy 'I can have a second chance if I don't get this exactly right' feeling, landing him instead in an area of tension and uncertainty.

Similar methods are used in console games (e.g. Mario Bros), which in many ways are far more advanced than PC games, in my opinion.

[CWorth]

Originally Posted by Beery

An important part of good simulation design is compensating for this element. A really good simulation will make you want to fire as many torpedoes as real commanders did, despite the fact that you know it's only a game. One way to do it is to lessen the torpedo effectiveness so that it has a range of effectiveness that randomizes the resulting explosion - so that one torpedo might sink the ship as effectively as a real torpedo, or it might not. This has the effect of making the player want to fire more torpedoes at the target because he knows one torpedo alone may be ineffective.

I like your idea Beery.What would I need to change to lower their power or get settings like you describe?

[rulle34]

The amont of torpedos used are in general depending on two things; the size of the target and/or the probability of hitting the target.
Close range and a good situation demand less torpedos.

Remember how this famous captain Otto Kretscmer used a tactics to come inside the convoy at night and at very close range fire torpedo. This tactic created the saying "One torpedo ...one ship" I guess this is not true to the word or letter but if you have to fire at longer range, then the fire solution is little more unsure, then fire two in a spread to ensure one hit. (Large ships maybe more than two)

Statistics can also be misguided. Later in war submarines many times was not able to come close to the target. That means often to fire more torpedos at the same target to ensure a hit. This was also the reason for developing the FAT and LUT torpedos. To compensate in some way for firing at longer distance.

A good tip is also to read "Uboot commanders handbook" In there is torpedo firing tactics well described in different situations.

[Kalach]

I think its excellent now (using rub1.44 and commander), it's intensely frustrating, but you fell like a real captain would of after watching your torpedo hit, and your target sink half way before getting their repairs under control and limping away.
I recently got a book 'U-boat operations of the second world war', its a reference list like uboat,net - reading through that, it says that many ships were damaged but escaped. In the unmodded game I could almost always count on each torp taking a ship.



Does anyone know where the optimal spot to hit is? Should I aim roughly for the fuel, or the middle or bow, or put a magnetic torp .5-1.5m under it?
Also if I used an electric torp on magnetic, would the escorts magicly know which direction it came from, or would they have to search everywhere?

[CCIP]

I think one of the fundamental issues in SHIII is the overwhelming reliability of torpedoes. Those things are much less prone to failure than they were in reality - especially magnetics.

Personally, I've decided to use impact-only until late 1942; I tend to just run them at the default 4m depth, unless the target happens to be oddly-curved or has a very shallow draft :hmm:

[oblio]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Magnetics, which in SHIII are far more reliable and are used far more widely than in reality, were supposed to sink the ship on the first hit.

Otherwise, going by Doenitz's statistics from his memoirs, the number of torpedo hits vs. the number of ships sunk is just shy of 2:1. Keep in mind, there were many instances where 3-4 torpedoes were needed to sink ships.

Using impact torpedoes only in SHIII, I usually get closer to 2.5-3:1 :hmm:

Very true, the 2:1 ratio is easily replicable in SHIII w/ RUB (I have limited experience w/ vanilla SHIII) when using impact only. IMO, realism is well balanced for the player that uses manual targeting techniques.