Quote:
so yet again : THE SENSORS IN GWX ARE NOT UBER!!!!!!!!
Stop blaming it, and IMPROVE UR TACTICS!
Reminder: this post is not aimed against the topic creater, but against the person I quoted (oRGy) and the rest of those UBER WHINERS
|
I do not consider myself a whiner, but I have no trouble in saying that you are ignorant.
I created the Improved U-Boat 1.02 mod, if you care to recall, and spent many hours researching and going over the AI sensors and adjusting them to historically correct values.
After doing this, users noted that the DD AI was 'nerfed' in comparison to stock. This was due to limitations of the AI and foolish design decisions by the SH3 devs, so clearly historically correct values have to be changed to get a realistic outcome.
However, GWX goes too far in the other direction in my opinion.
Subs having to dive to 180m+ and go to silent running to have a chance to evade a DD in 1939 is ludicrous. First of all, not every boat in '39 even had ASDIC, but assuming they did, the early models were extemely ineffective and didn't scan below 100m, never mind the fact that all crews in the RN at this time were completely untrained for ASW warfare!
A players periscope being detected by an armed TUG boat, in 1940 at 2800 meters while they player was in a type II @ 2 knots is ludicrous. As a former naval watch officer posted:
Quote:
I stood watch as a contact coordinator on 2 classes of submarines, I can assure you that at 28 hunderd meters the only way to spot a WWII attack scope that was raised for 6 seconds is to be looking exactly where it is when its raised.
The initial detection was by sonar, sorry that capability is highly questionable in my experience. I can assure that passively, that detection would be 97% impossible, especially with the surface duct working the way it would in a real ocean enviroment. I have seen modern passive sonar miss a surface ship that was 1000 yards away!
I can almost guarantee that that capability is far above and beyond what was capable in 1940, even under good conditions. Not saying a fluke detection isnt possible, hell I'll tell ya I heard and seen some strange stuff out there, but the norm is not that good.
|
Certainly, some of the complaints by people just involve laziness. My position is that the AI should match the historical model, not some modders of idea of "hard" in order to separate "the men from the boys". As another poster said:
Quote:
Of the 9 U-boats sunk in 1939, two were sunk by mines and one by a British sub. The other six were destroyed by depth charges from 2 or 3 ASW vessels (never by just one alone.) Also in at least 2 cases, premature torpedo detonation or broaching the surface gave the U-boat's approximate position away.)
Of the 24 U-boats sunk in 1940, two were rammed by friendly or neutral ships, two were sunk by aircraft, two more by British subs, and 7 definitely and probably one more were lost to mines. Two were sunk by combinations of 4 destroyers and a Sunderland, and the remaining 8 by ASW vessels, mostly multiple ASW vessels.
|
If GWX results follow this pattern, then it is realistic and I have no complaints. If a player can engage in historical tactics of U-boat commanders and achieve the same results as them, then I have no complaints. If this is not the case, then GWX is unrealistic and accusing others of being "UBER WHINERS" is immature and unhelpful.
Ciao
01-23-07, 12:40 PM
Threaded Mode