Editing weapon effectiveness

[JochenHeiden]

How do I edit the load time of deck guns, the damage a deck gun shell does, and the damage of a torpedo? I am using Real Float Boat 1.24 and find these values to be all very unacceptable, and I would like to make some changes but I don't know how.

[CaptainCox]

MiniTweaker with Sub.Guns tweak file etc etc.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...8&postcount=11

Small tut here on the MiniTweaker
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=110889

[JochenHeiden]

I see files for editing the characteristics for the gun such as reload time and ammo ammount, but I don't see where we can actually change the amount of damage it makes. Same for torpedoes. What is the tweak file for weapon damage?

[Taurolas]

@ JochenHeiden

As CaptainCox says... look at the links he's suggested he knows what he's talking about

as i've already stated in a previous mail, damage from shells / torps will need to be modified by either yourself or specific mod as there are currently no tweak files available to do this.

you could if you want to learn take one of the upgraded torp mods files and a stock 1.2 torp file and compare them in a Hex editor to view the min and max values on damage to see how its done ( comparing both files together will show you whats been altered and should be fairly easy to check and understand).

hope that helps.

PS i believe there is a little tutorial including pics on Hex editing (not sure who did it) and that may also help in your torpedo / shell modding quest.

[Steppenwolf]

I have put the contents of the tweak files for the Torpedoes_US.zon and Torpedoes_US.sim files into the thread listed below, so you can cut and paste their contents into your own text files.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...d=1#post534957

[Beery]

Originally Posted by JochenHeiden

How do I edit the load time of deck guns, the damage a deck gun shell does, and the damage of a torpedo? I am using Real Float Boat 1.24 and find these values to be all very unacceptable...

Just FYI, in RFB torpedoes are unchanged from the standard SH4 values. Also, be aware that RFB deck gun load times and shell damage are based purely on real life timing and damage recorded in actual WW2 engagements.

[JochenHeiden]

Originally Posted by Beery

Just FYI, in RFB torpedoes are unchanged from the standard SH4 values. Also, be aware that RFB deck gun load times and shell damage are based purely on real life timing and damage recorded in actual WW2 engagements.

Calling absolute BS on your load times and damage sir, but I really appreciate all the hard work you've done on the mod. Other than the load time and damage which I've set the realistic levels on my own rig, I am very pleased with the rest of Real Fleet Boat and am looking forward to the next installment.

[Beery]

Originally Posted by JochenHeiden

Calling absolute BS on your load times and damage sir...

Based on what info?

Reload times in books are the absolute fastest reload times that could be done with one of the navy's best crews shooting at absolutely nothing with ammo stacked next to the gun on a boat tied securely to a dock. Those times are pure fantasy - they do not relate to combat at all. I've looked at times of actual combat engagements where each round was aimed at an actual enemy, where the boat was in combat and where the log showed actual times for the engagement. That is the only way to get accurate figures that can be used to calculate the reload speed and the number of rounds necessary to sink ships of certain tonnages. Anything else is absolute BS.

One example of a ship sunk by gunfire is the David H. Atwater (a small coastal freighter of 2438 tons - about the size of one of the game's small freighters), which required 50 rounds (out of 93 fired) to sink. I did a few tests on freighters of a similar tonnage in RFB and in stock SH4. Such a target takes about 7 rounds to sink in stock SH4, while in RFB it takes 62. Clearly, the stock game's damage (not RFB's) is absolute BS.

Here are some examples of deck gun engagements from German U-boats:

Topp in U-552 fired 126 rounds at a 10,000ton freighter and claimed a sinking but the ship was not destroyed.

Vogel in U-588 hit a 4,800 ton tanker with 2 torps and then spent 4 hours firing 200 rounds into it (one round every 72 seconds) before claiming it sinking in flames - this ship also survived.

Schacht in U-507 tried to sink a 6,800ton ship by gunfire after the crew had abandoned it but finally gave up and had to use a torpedo.

Wurdemann in U-506 used his gun on 7,000ton tanker and claimed it sunk in flames but the ship survived.

Rasch in U-106 hit a 5,000ton ship with 2 torps and then finished it off with his gun but it took 193 rounds.

Mohlmann in U-571 hit a 9,800ton tanker with 2 torps and finished it off with 20 rounds (this is less than in the previous example but SH4 will often let you sink a ship with around 20 rounds without having to use 2 torps first).

Wiebe in U-516 sank a small 1,200ton coaster by gunfire - number of rounds is not given but it took him 20 minutes.

If you have conflicting numbers, provide them and give links to the info. If not, you really ought not be calling BS on my research. I've spent hours - days even - tracking info down. What have you got to back up your claims?

I have always put out a challenge - prove my figures wrong. No one ever did it for RUb and no one has yet done it for RFB. Give me data that shows a deck gun similar to that on a US submarine firing faster than one round per 30 seconds for at least 100 rounds in actual combat conditions. Give me data that proves that my damage figures are off by more than 20% for rounds expended to sink ships in actual combat.

It's easy to call BS. It's not so easy to back up the rhetoric with evidence.

[Beery]

Here's an example from (http://www2.xlibris.com/bookstore/bo...asp?bookid=455). It's a 5" gun similar to guns used on submarines of the period:

"0642- Command to "open fire" given 5"38 cal. Gun crew at stern of vessel, opening range 11,000 yards, deflection 493. Splash short and to right. Range increased to 14,500 and deflection left 5. Splash short and close in deflection. Range increased to 17,500 yards. Splash unobserved-over horizon. Range decreased by 500-yard increments.
0653- Order to "cease fire" given. Twelve rounds expended with no casualties. Several shots appeared close but range too great for accurate spotting."

So 12 rounds in 11-12 minutes. Then later we have:

0723- Command passed to 5-inch crew to "open fire." Range 13,500 yards and deflection 490. Several of our succeeding rounds fell close to target but great difficulty was experienced in spotting all overshots-splashes could not be seen.
0733- Sub [this is the enemy sub] ceased firing after expending 5 to 7 rounds. All shots were short. Sub resumed chase.
0734- We ceased firing after expending 13 rounds-no casualties and apparently no damage inflicted on enemy.

So 13 rounds in 11-12 minutes.

"0736- Our 5-inch again opened fire with range of 13,000 yards. We crossed target and one shot fell very close to sub's hull.
0737- Sub ceased firing and again turned into our wake and took up the chase. We ceased firing at this time after expending eight rounds without casualty."

So 8 rounds in 1-2 minutes. Why the discrepancy? Well we'll investigate that later. The gun is again used:

"0738- Sub again turned broadside to and opened fire for the third time. We immediately returned the fire and crossed the target at 13,500 yards. Two rounds appeared to score close misses. The sub fired approximately eight rounds at us and the closest hit between 500 and 800 yards astern.
0817- The sub ceased firing after our two close misses and immediately headed for the horizon on our port quarter. The total number of rounds fired by the sub was estimated at between 18 and 22.
0818- We ceased fire after expending a total of 38 rounds without casualty-either material or personal. None of our rounds was observed to have scored a certain hit and from all indications the sub retired undamaged."

So 38 rounds in 40-41 minutes.

There are some apparent discrepancies here. Let's examine them.

First, when the order to open fire is given, the gun needs preparing for action. This takes time. Clearly there was an incentive to get the gun firing ASAP (the vessel was taking fire), so this is the fastest that this gun could be fired at this time. We can conclude that 12 rounds in 11-12 minutes is the highest possible rate of fire for the first 12 rounds when using carefully aimed ranged fire with this type of gun.

The next fire is similar - just under one round per minute. We can assume the boat is firing carefully aimed and ranged shots.

When the gun is next fired the gun crew apparently achieve a rate of fire of one round per 7-14 seconds. Either the estimate of the time is wrong or our gun crew are at their most efficient, perhaps using ready-use ammo and firing as quickly as possible - perhaps less-well-aimed in an effort to scare the enemy boat away or in the hopes of getting a lucky hit with volume of fire.

In the final engagement the firing rate drops drastically - to less than one shell per minute. Nothing has changed - the Japanese boat is still engaging and our crew are returning fire.

Now a total of 71 rounds were fired in a minimum of 63 minutes (while the gun crew were under orders to fire). So 53 seconds per round.

If that rate of fire is BS then reality is BS. Also, note that RFB's rate of fire is nearly twice as fast as the above example.

[JochenHeiden]

Originally Posted by Beery

Here's an example from (http://www2.xlibris.com/bookstore/bo...asp?bookid=455). It's a 5" gun similar to guns used on submarines of the period:

"0642- Command to "open fire" given 5"38 cal. Gun crew at stern of vessel, opening range 11,000 yards, deflection 493. Splash short and to right. Range increased to 14,500 and deflection left 5. Splash short and close in deflection. Range increased to 17,500 yards. Splash unobserved-over horizon. Range decreased by 500-yard increments.
0653- Order to "cease fire" given. Twelve rounds expended with no casualties. Several shots appeared close but range too great for accurate spotting."

So 12 rounds in 11-12 minutes. Then later we have:

0723- Command passed to 5-inch crew to "open fire." Range 13,500 yards and deflection 490. Several of our succeeding rounds fell close to target but great difficulty was experienced in spotting all overshots-splashes could not be seen.
0733- Sub [this is the enemy sub] ceased firing after expending 5 to 7 rounds. All shots were short. Sub resumed chase.
0734- We ceased firing after expending 13 rounds-no casualties and apparently no damage inflicted on enemy.

So 13 rounds in 11-12 minutes.

"0736- Our 5-inch again opened fire with range of 13,000 yards. We crossed target and one shot fell very close to sub's hull.
0737- Sub ceased firing and again turned into our wake and took up the chase. We ceased firing at this time after expending eight rounds without casualty."

So 8 rounds in 1-2 minutes. Why the discrepancy? Well we'll investigate that later. The gun is again used:

"0738- Sub again turned broadside to and opened fire for the third time. We immediately returned the fire and crossed the target at 13,500 yards. Two rounds appeared to score close misses. The sub fired approximately eight rounds at us and the closest hit between 500 and 800 yards astern.
0817- The sub ceased firing after our two close misses and immediately headed for the horizon on our port quarter. The total number of rounds fired by the sub was estimated at between 18 and 22.
0818- We ceased fire after expending a total of 38 rounds without casualty-either material or personal. None of our rounds was observed to have scored a certain hit and from all indications the sub retired undamaged."

So 38 rounds in 40-41 minutes.

There are some apparent discrepancies here. Let's examine them.

First, when the order to open fire is given, the gun needs preparing for action. This takes time. Clearly there was an incentive to get the gun firing ASAP (the vessel was taking fire), so this is the fastest that this gun could be fired at this time. We can conclude that 12 rounds in 11-12 minutes is the highest possible rate of fire for the first 12 rounds when using carefully aimed ranged fire with this type of gun.

The next fire is similar - just under one round per minute. We can assume the boat is firing carefully aimed and ranged shots.

When the gun is next fired the gun crew apparently achieve a rate of fire of one round per 7-14 seconds. Either the estimate of the time is wrong or our gun crew are at their most efficient, perhaps using ready-use ammo and firing as quickly as possible - perhaps less-well-aimed in an effort to scare the enemy boat away or in the hopes of getting a lucky hit with volume of fire.

In the final engagement the firing rate drops drastically - to less than one shell per minute. Nothing has changed - the Japanese boat is still engaging and our crew are returning fire.

Now a total of 71 rounds were fired in a minimum of 63 minutes (while the gun crew were under orders to fire). So 53 seconds per round.

If that rate of fire is BS then reality is BS. Also, note that RFB's rate of fire is nearly twice as fast as the above example.

This is your interpretation. :-) It's not mine. To each his own. Thank you for your time and effort on this mod.

[perisher]

Originally Posted by JochenHeiden

[This is your interpretation. :-) It's not mine. To each his own. Thank you for your time and effort on this mod.

May I ask just what your interpretation is?

I ask because this subject particularly interests me. As an ex-sailor I can assure you that published ROF is near to impossible to achieve in reality. I have been researching this subject and I believe that Beery is right about the damage effect of the deck gun.

The actual ROF achieved is very difficult to estimate. I am sure Beery's figures are right for U-boats in the Atlantic, given ammunition supply and the effect of ocean swells. I think USN fleet boats could do just a little better though, as they had better ammunition supply. The high ROFs obtained by British boats in the Med are because of better ammunition supply, in "S" and "T" boats anyway, and the usual lack of significant surface swell in that sea, not to mention extensive training on the gun.

[Beery]

Originally Posted by JochenHeiden

This is your interpretation. :-) It's not mine. To each his own. Thank you for your time and effort on this mod.

This is not 'my interpretation'. I'm quoting facts directly from what was reported by the ship's commander. All of the figures I've quoted are from reports of ship, sub and U-boat logs. How could they be 'my interpretation'? In order for these figures to be wrong the commanders of these vessels would have to be lying, or mistaken.

The game's deck guns are correctly modelled by RFB according to all the evidence I've seen. If you want fantasy that's fine - as you say, 'to each his own', but when you call BS on my figures you're going to have to come up with some evidence to back up your claims. Calling BS is just plain rude if it's based purely on your 'desire' for a fantasy-based fast reload speed and uber shell damage.

[Beery]

Originally Posted by perisher

I am sure Beery's figures are right for U-boats in the Atlantic, given ammunition supply and the effect of ocean swells. I think USN fleet boats could do just a little better though, as they had better ammunition supply...

I agree, which is why I've modelled RFB's deck guns so that they reload nearly twice as fast as all the figures I've seen for U-boat and surface ship deck gun reloads. I've yet to see any figures for actual US subs so I've calculated reloads based on the gun's distance from the ammo supply and the number of crew serving the gun - then I compared that to U-boat supply and crews and used the differences I found to come up with an estimate. When I find some actual US sub combat reload times I fully expect RFB's reload times to slow a little, since I reckon I've been a bit too liberal. I doubt any sub could sustain 2 rounds per minute after the initial ready-use ammo was expended, but we'll see. Until I find better data I'll err on the side of liberalism and give the gun a faster reload time than I think is realistic.