Reduced Tonnage RUB/SH 3 Commander

[Beery]

Originally Posted by Observer

I can think of a couple of ways to do it, but perhaps the easiest is to change the renown requirement to "purchase" new crew members. It would force the user to go to the "barracks" to look for new crew members. What I'm thinking is perhaps a very nominal renown (0, 5, or 10) requirement, but the higher ranking officers would only have one specialty (i.e. watch, repair, torpedo). I'd think the same should be true for the warrant officers as well. I'll have a look at the files to see if it's possible.

The problem with reducing renown requirements is that it rewards lazyness. If you're not adversely affected by buying a high-level crewman there's no incentive to get your current crew promoted to take the place of a lost crewman, so you'll just buy a high level replacement instead of solving the problem with planning. This is very similar to the fatigue system, which, in the standard game, rewards the player for a lack of long-term strategy. Currently the replacement system is broken because there are virtually no crew losses so you simply don't need replacements at all. A system whereby high-level recruits were cheap would result in a crippled replacement system (this time because of a lack of incentive to keep replacement costs down). Only by keeping recruits expensive AND implementing transfers and promotions off the boat can we have a system that rewards forethought and punishes lazyness. Having said that, I'm not looking to impose a system that punishes players, after all, the player only has a certain amount of control over promotions, but one can (to a certain extent) 'groom' crewmen to replace crewmen who are likely to go. What I'm hoping for is a system that provides incentives to careful play, so that it makes the game richer for players.

In short, the replacement system is an area of the game where we can probably institute a positive 'work for reward' system, so that the game can become more interesting in terms of decisions made when in port.

[Observer]

Originally Posted by Beery

The problem with reducing renown requirements is that it rewards lazyness. If you're not adversely affected by buying a high-level crewman there's no incentive to get your current crew promoted to take the place of a lost crewman, so you'll just buy a high level replacement instead of solving the problem with planning. This is very similar to the fatigue system, which, in the standard game, rewards the player for a lack of long-term strategy. Currently the replacement system is broken because there are virtually no crew losses so you simply don't need replacements at all. A system whereby high-level recruits were cheap would result in a crippled replacement system (this time because of a lack of incentive to keep replacement costs down). Only by keeping recruits expensive AND implementing transfers and promotions off the boat can we have a system that rewards forethought and punishes lazyness. Having said that, I'm not looking to impose a system that punishes players, after all, the player only has a certain amount of control over promotions, but one can (to a certain extent) 'groom' crewmen to replace crewmen who are likely to go. What I'm hoping for is a system that provides incentives to careful play, so that it makes the game richer for players.

In short, the replacement system is an area of the game where we can probably institute a positive 'work for reward' system, so that the game can become more interesting in terms of decisions made when in port.

Can't do it anyways. I think the requirements are hardcoded.

[Observer]

Originally Posted by Beery

Exactly. The important thing to realise in these situations is that by the time you get a crewman who is to be promoted you'll also have other crewmen who have risen in the ranks, so you're likely to have a man already in the crew who is ready to take the vacant position, and you'll have a guy who can take his position too. After promoting from within the boat, the only person you're likely to need will be a raw recruit. This will cost in terms of renown for NCOs and officer recruits, but it will be much less of a cost than if you had to buy a very qualified officer or NCO replacement. Because of this, I think the replacement system will work much better than the standard system, in that there will be a real reason to get a raw recruit.

I actually rather like this idea as long as junior crew members can get promoted at a reasonable rate. As it is 100 experience points for the next rank for officers means you'll always have a crew of the most junior officers regardless of qualifications at the experience rates I'm currently seeing (4 - 12 points per patrol). I think this requirement should get changed to something like 25 or 30 points of experience (maybe a bit more like 40). This would translate to about 5 to 8 good patrols before the next rank with no guarantee they wouldn't get transferred before the next rank anyways. Then you could pick up the lowest ranking officer in the barracks without a renown penalty and it would still require the player to do some long term planning for qualifications.

[Beery]

Originally Posted by Observer

I actually rather like this idea as long as junior crew members can get promoted at a reasonable rate. As it is 100 experience points for the next rank for officers means you'll always have a crew of the most junior officers regardless of qualifications at the experience rates I'm currently seeing (4 - 12 points per patrol). I think this requirement should get changed to something like 25 or 30 points of experience (maybe a bit more like 40). This would translate to about 5 to 8 good patrols before the next rank with no guarantee they wouldn't get transferred before the next rank anyways. Then you could pick up the lowest ranking officer in the barracks without a renown penalty and it would still require the player to do some long term planning for qualifications.

Yes. There will probably be some need to fine tune the promotions system. Once the system is working we'll see what's needed in terms of tuning the experience points to make them work efficiently.

[JScones]

Originally Posted by Beery

Great idea! We could easily do this. What parameters do you envision? Currently, RUb has a 40 minute departure delay, but we could easily randomize it so that it went from 15 to 45. After ships lost contact, what would be a reasonable time delay for them to give up the search? We have to be careful not to have too big a delay because the escorts get too far from the convoy and they don't catch up, which leaves the convoy more open to attack.

I've just added this feature to SH3 Commander. I've used 15 and 45 minutes as the boundaries, but the values are stored in a new cfg file, so are fully editable.

[pampanito]

May I comment again on the issue of tonnage, the WaW campaign shows that SH3 players are perhaps sinking too many big ships, just look at the latest two periods covered by WaW:

Period June/August 1941
Real U-boat sinkings: 119 ships / 524,044 tons (average 4403)
Wolves at War (SH3): 88 ships / 534,377 tons (average 6072)

Period September/November 1941
Real U-boat sinkings: 100 ships / 459,079 tons (average 4590)
Wolves at War (SH3): 151 ships / 991,493 tons (average 6566)

For the whole war, U-boats destroyed 2918 ships for 14,879,472 tons, that's an average of just over 5000 tons per ship (5099 to be exact).

I agree that some commanders racked big tonnages, but if we look at Kals in U-130 we see that his impressive total is owed, in part, to a successful attack in unusual circumstances (the sinking of three anchored troop transports on 12 November 1942, EDWARD RUTLEDGE, TASKER H. BLISS and HUGH L. SCOTT, for a total of 34,407 tons) and also to the fact that his big U-boat was sent three times to the US coast/Caribbean during the 'Happy times' of 1942, bagging no less than seven big tankers. Even so, Kals' successes included two ships of barely 1500 tons, FRISCO and FIDRA, a size which is smaller than even the coastal merchants of SH3.

The Random tonnage mod works OK for me, with one 'but': the randomization seems too small, often just one or two tons between ship and ship, I think it should be at least a hundred. I have just sunk three C2 in my latest patrol, November/December 1941; awarded tonnages:
5159, 5160, 5161 !
In another patrol I sank just two C2; each had the same tonnage (5041).
Although I am afraid this small random margin is not the fault of the Random mod, but of the way the SH3 engine calculates the tonnage.

And I have yet to sink a ship in the range 4000-4900...

One last comment: if something seems too high (at least for the period 40/42) is the frequency with which convoys are attacked, too many convoys versus single ships. In WaW, 90% of the sinkings reported are from convoys! Add 'veteran' and 'elite' SH3 players, and each convoy battle ends in multiple sinkings of big ships.

BTW, a big THANK YOU to Beery, Observer and all other modders, who are still trying to make this game better and better!

[Beery]

As I said before, I fear the overall tonnage sunk by all boats is not going to be truly representative of the aces. The game tends to simulate the aces much better than it simulates KptLt. Hans Sixpack who went on 6 patrols and sank little more than a few smaller ships. I suspect that if we could break down the numbers we would find a marked difference in tonnage per ship between aces and ordinary commanders.

Anyway, the next version of Jaesen's SH3 Commander will have a new random tonnage feature which is based on Observer's mod. The feature is fully user-configurable, so the player can adjust the base tonnage figure for each ship type as well as the tonnage range (%+/- for all ships), and how much the ships increase in tonnage as the war goes on.

[Beery]

Originally Posted by pampanito

The Random tonnage mod works OK for me, with one 'but': the randomization seems too small, often just one or two tons between ship and ship, I think it should be at least a hundred. I have just sunk three C2 in my latest patrol, November/December 1941; awarded tonnages:
5159, 5160, 5161 !
In another patrol I sank just two C2; each had the same tonnage (5041).
Although I am afraid this small random margin is not the fault of the Random mod, but of the way the SH3 engine calculates the tonnage.

It is. The problem is, however we randomize the tonnage, if you sink two of the same ship type in a patrol, you will get the same tonnage (plus or minus the tiny one or two tons of randomization that already exists in the game). There is no known way to make a bigger difference between two or more ships of the same type sunk in one patrol.

[iambecomelife]

Originally Posted by Beery

It is. The problem is, however we randomize the tonnage, if you sink two of the same ship type in a patrol, you will get the same tonnage (plus or minus the tiny one or two tons of randomization that already exists in the game). There is no known way to make a bigger difference between two or more ships of the same type sunk in one patrol.

I'm glad you're bringing this up, since it's been driving me crazy. Part of the appeal of "Aces of the Deep" was only having a rough idea of how much each vessel weighed; with SH3 it's entirely predictable. It makes sense considering that almost all of the ingame ships are supposed to be mass produced classes but it also reveals that they may have overestimated how common these ships were. Even the "aces" often had patrols with nothing but 3000-5000 tonners, as opposed to the relatively large t-2's and c-3's we always get. I'm afraid that even if we DO find out what file is responsible for tonnage variation, altering it will affect all ships including liberty ships and escorts.

[Beery]

We are planning, in SH3 Commander, to have a much greater range of tonnage variation. In the proposed mod as it is currently, the ships will vary up to 30% (+10% and -20% from their base values), and the ships will gain about 2% in tonnage each year. These settings will probably change, and are fully player-configurable.

One question I have is regarding the mass-produced ships. Were tonnage claims based on the official tonnage of the ship? Were they based on the tonnage plus cargo? If the Victory and Liberty ships were all produced based on the same plans, the tonnage would be identical unless they included the cargo weight. If these ships are all the same, and if the cargo was not a factor in tonnage claims, there's not much point in including these in the tonnage randomization file.

[thasaint]

observer:

where can i find the mod that changes the ship names to small medium large? and perhaps this could be added as one of the optional things in SH3 commander, i never even knew of it till i read this post

[pampanito]

Originally Posted by Beery

If the Victory and Liberty ships were all produced based on the same plans, the tonnage would be identical unless they included the cargo weight.

Exactly! 90% of the Liberty ships were registered at 7176 tons (a few 7177), the other 10% built at an specific yard were 7191 tons. The Oceans were registered with minimal differences, between 7172 and 7175, and the Forts between 7130 and 7135. Nobody should protest if all were given 7176 tons in SH3.

[iambecomelife]

Originally Posted by Beery

We are planning, in SH3 Commander, to have a much greater range of tonnage variation. In the proposed mod as it is currently, the ships will vary up to 30% (+10% and -20% from their base values), and the ships will gain about 2% in tonnage each year. These settings will probably change, and are fully player-configurable.

One question I have is regarding the mass-produced ships. Were tonnage claims based on the official tonnage of the ship? Were they based on the tonnage plus cargo? If the Victory and Liberty ships were all produced based on the same plans, the tonnage would be identical unless they included the cargo weight. If these ships are all the same, and if the cargo was not a factor in tonnage claims, there's not much point in including these in the tonnage randomization file.

According to David Irving's book on PQ-17, tonnage was calculated based on GRT (Gross Registered Tonnage). Thus, the weight remained constant, with liberties always being about 7200 tons, for instance. It wouldn't matter if you sank one in ballast or loaded.

[Beery]

So does that count for the Victory Ships too? Currently I have both Liberty Ships and Victory Ships set up with a lot of variation.

[pampanito]

Originally Posted by Beery

So does that count for the Victory Ships too? Currently I have both Liberty Ships and Victory Ships set up with a lot of variation.

Perhaps Victory Ships should not be included in SH3 at all. They entered the war very late, and mainly in the Pacific.
Just three of them were lost in action, all to Japanese kamikazes in April 1945: CANADA VICTORY, HOBBS VICTORY, LOGAN VICTORY. Tonnages given as 7608, 7607 and 7607 respectively.