[REL] Trigger Maru Overhauled

[HMCS]

What sinking mechanics are in use?

The reason I'm asking is that I sank a Nagara Maru with 3 hits to the bow and she sank in about 45 seconds from the stern.

[WH4K]

As I understand it, TMO does not modify the stock SH4 "hit points" sinking model. It sure looks that way, based on sinking mechanics I've observed in my war career (played entirely under TMO 2.0).

If you want a more realistic sinking model, you probably should try Real Fleet Boat. Its "flooding"-based model is well explained in the RFB manual. That's my next stop. I've nearly finished the war with my current sub captain, and plan to restart the war with RFB.

[fitzcarraldo]

Originally Posted by WH4K

As I understand it, TMO does not modify the stock SH4 "hit points" sinking model. It sure looks that way, based on sinking mechanics I've observed in my war career (played entirely under TMO 2.0).

If you want a more realistic sinking model, you probably should try Real Fleet Boat. Its "flooding"-based model is well explained in the RFB manual. That's my next stop. I've nearly finished the war with my current sub captain, and plan to restart the war with RFB.

Yes, RFB has a realistic sinking mechanics. TMO (and RSRDC, only a campaign plus other stuff), don´t change the stock sinking mechs of SH4.

Regards.

Fitzcarraldo

[Armistead]

TMO's damage model is far from stock, although it probably operates on stock factors. Damage from weapons have two values, direct and splash, direct to the immediate area hit, splash in indirect damage from the blast radius. Ducimas has adjusted these values so ships don't sink so easily. Seems he's also played with adjusting the damage zones again with TMO2.1. Why it's important to spread the damage. If you score 100% hit points on a zone, it's not going to take anymore damage.

Also crew ratings effect how fast a ship can be repaired and TMO has much higher ratings than stock.

Overall, I still think a flooding model gives more balance than one based on hit points. Watching a carrier blow up after two torps and sink in a few minutes rather unrealistic. If I had my way we would have no "ship sunk" message, until it's totally underwater. Even then I wish we didn't get credit until we got back to base, that way we would have to watch each ship go under to know..

[I'm goin' down]

Originally Posted by Armistead

If I had my way we would have no "ship sunk" message, until it's totally underwater. Even then I wish we didn't get credit until we got back to base, that way we would have to watch each ship go under to know..

Armistead, what about the ten ships I hit that went down in shallow water? Don't theyt count? Only their flags were above the water line, and there were lifeboats in the water. No credit for sinking any of them, eh? I never imagined that the depth of the water would be a factor used in determining whether one was credited with sinking a ship. How about credit for half a ship? Or a creidt for a ship with an asterisk next to it?

[I'm goin' down]

I have tried RFB. After playing TMO I found that it was too easy to evade the dds in RFB. That tells me that attacks lack as high a degree of risk in RFB. I like the risk and challenge of tyring to outwit the dds in TMO. Plus, one way or another, after a successful attack on a convoy or TF in TMO you usually have deal with them. It puts your whole career at risk, so you cannot be asleep at the wheel. If RFB, and for that matter, FOTRS, had dds with a tougher AI, I would try them again. It has been over a year since I gave them up.

My technique for approaching a convoy or TF in TMO is to come in under the thermal layer, let the lead dd pass, come to periscope depth, fire torps, and sneak or run away. I have never got the hang of Armistead's "end around" technique. Each time I have tried it, my boat has been sunk.

[Ducimus]

The mod uses a modified vanilla damage model so ship don't sink so quickly.

I went this route for several reasons:

1.) Ships sink the same way regardless if HP loss or flooding. Its not like SH3 where they went KABOOM and broke in two pieces each and every time hitpoints went to zero.

2.) In my personal opinion, the only real tangible benefit that i can tell off a purely flood based model is the removal of the ship sunk message. Given the amount of things there are to do, i couldn't justify to myself spending 8 hours a day for a month or two on a damage model overhaul, just to get rid of a text message. The cost of labor to benefit ratio didn't jive with me.

3.) By just modifing the vanilla model, it allows TMO to have new ships adapted to it much easier. If you want to add a ship to TMO, its not really a problem. With a complete damage model overhaul, you'd have to make the new ship compatible first by reworking its damage zones before it would work correctly.

4.) More of a personal but, I hate sitting around for forever and a day to wait and see if a ships going to sink. IMO, one purpose of a damage model overhaul to pure flooding, is to get reduce player tonnage to more realistic values by encouraging them to use more ordinance per target. While i like that idea, it does NOT work on me as a player. I will sit there and use TC for however long it takes if it means saving a fish, no matter how much i hate it, ill sit there and wait, gnashing my teeth, cussing a mean streak. I imagine lots of other people are the same way. And since I'm the only one who's behind the overall design of this mod, and design decisions are generally not made by any committee.... there ya go.

5.) I did start a complete damage model overhaul to a pure flood system at one point in time, but found I don't have the patience for that type of work anymore. Its incredibly tedious and time consuming. Combine with points 1 through 4, and you have my full stance on the subject.

[I'm goin' down]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

The mod uses a modified vanilla damage model so ship don't sink so quickly.

I went this route for several reasons:

1.) Ships sink the same way regardless if HP loss or flooding. Its not like SH3 where they went KABOOM and broke in two pieces each and every time hitpoints went to zero.

2.) In my personal opinion, the only real tangible benefit that i can tell off a purely flood based model is the removal of the ship sunk message. Given the amount of things there are to do, i couldn't justify to myself spending 8 hours a day for a month or two on a damage model overhaul, just to get rid of a text message. The cost of labor to benefit ratio didn't jive with me.

3.) By just modifing the vanilla model, it allows TMO to have new ships adapted to it much easier. If you want to add a ship to TMO, its not really a problem. With a complete damage model overhaul, you'd have to make the new ship compatible first by reworking its damage zones before it would work correctly.

4.) More of a personal but, I hate sitting around for forever and a day to wait and see if a ships going to sink. IMO, one purpose of a damage model overhaul to pure flooding, is to get reduce player tonnage to more realistic values by encouraging them to use more ordinance per target. While i like that idea, it does NOT work on me as a player. I will sit there and use TC for however long it takes if it means saving a fish, no matter how much i hate it, ill sit there and wait, gnashing my teeth, cussing a mean streak. I imagine lots of other people are the same way. And since I'm the only one who's behind the overall design of this mod, and design decisions are generally not made by any committee.... there ya go.

5.) I did start a complete damage model overhaul to a pure flood system at one point in time, but found I don't have the patience for that type of work anymore. Its incredibly tedious and time consuming. Combine with points 1 through 4, and you have my full stance on the subject.

And they don't count as sunk unless they are totally submerged without even the flag showing!

[HMCS]

Fair enough; I was just asking.

As far as the escorts in RFB, I suppose it would be a fairly easy task to toughen them up with a submod.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by HMCS

Fair enough; I was just asking.

When people ask the same thing, or a bunch of people talk about the same thing, i'll make a general response, not really directed at anyone in particular. The mod is what it is. It's not the greatest mod, but I've done my best to address as many areas of the game as possible. ( One problem ive always had is when I focus on one thing too long, everything else gets neglected. So i tend to spend so long on one problem, and then move on to the next. )

As far as the escorts in RFB, I suppose it would be a fairly easy task to toughen them up with a submod.

Yeah i think it is. I've never looked at their work, but i know the files involved in increasing the AI. Its really not hard, so I think its a matter of intent. Whatever the RFB team did or didn't do with the AI, i'm sure there was an intent behind it.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by I'm goin' down

Armistead, what about the ten ships I hit that went down in shallow water? Don't theyt count? Only their flags were above the water line, and there were lifeboats in the water. No credit for sinking any of them, eh? I never imagined that the depth of the water would be a factor used in determining whether one was credited with sinking a ship. How about credit for half a ship? Or a creidt for a ship with an asterisk next to it?

Maybe Duc can answer, but obviously it takes more work to get ships to sink in shallow water if the deck doesn't go under. I've had them sunk, but because they hit bottom and the decks still show above it seems to take more hit points to get enough damage to get a sunk message.

As for the flag, were talking decks below water, not mast.

[Hylander_1314]

I don't venture ino harbors often, but when I do, with the intent to sink vessels, I make sure to hit them hard, to where everything topside on the deck blows up, and or try to split the target in 2. That is the only way I have been able to get credit for moored shallow water ships. The other thing to look for, is if they roll onto their side.

But to me, that's a waste of torpedoes to use 4 or 5 on one target to make sure it's a kill. I'll stay in the deep water so that when they go under, there's no question.

[I'm goin' down]

I missed the Leyete Gulf IJN force north of Luzon in October 44 (this campaign is a disaster for finding and sinking capital ships), but I had 12 torps left, including 2 in the aft compartment, and had already sunk four merhcants on the current mission. So, I sailed to Bungo Straights with plenty of fuel and waited. Eventually, along meandered two dds and two battleships (the BBs were doing 12 kts.) I decided to take out both BBs, as I had only racked up a dd and light cruiser to my warship tally in three and a half years into the campaign. I hit both. They were late war Ise's, and I nailed each with three torps, range of 900 yds., with the torps set to run at 25 feet. That slowed them down by a mere one knot. I hit the trailing Ise at 3,500 yds with a fourth torp, but that did not manage to slow it down further. End result: I did not sink either. I was out of torps. I should have unloaded all the torps on one target. By splitting the torps between two targets to rack up tonnage I ended up returning to base empty handed. You know you aren't having much luck when you nail two BBs with three shots each with impacts 25 feet below the water line.

Armistead, re credit for sinking: I was kidding you. I don't sink anything anyway, so I isn't an issue I worry about.

[Dignan]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I hate sitting around for forever and a day to wait and see if a ships going to sink.

This is the best reason for doing this. I like realism up to a point. I barely have time to play these games in the midst of real life so I don't want to spend too much of that free time waiting for ships to sink. Good design choice.

[WH4K]

I've long thought it was odd that your crew could notify you "She's going down!" regardless of the situation. For instance, how are they going to know that a ship is finally going under when you're several nautical miles away, 300 feet under the surface, crawling along at 1 knot under silent running?

Shouldn't you have to stick around and actually observe the sinking to get credit? I do unless being attacked. Not only is it more "correct," but sometimes a ship that looks as if it should sink, does not, & requires another torpedo or going-over with the deck gun.

Also it's curious how your log automagically knows the exact tonnage of the target. Wasn't tonnage sunk more or less guesswork? Another game-ism I guess.