How the hell........

[TorpX]

I'll go along with the previous post, and add a couple things:

1. TMO increased the range that IJN ships can fire at you. Some people had the view that because cruisers have guns that range 20,000 yds., they should be shooting 20,000 yds. Also, as has already been said, there was a desire to "spice up the game".

2. Schwartzritter's caution about sunlight applies to the moon, as well. I was spotted after patiently tracking a TB on the surface in the middle of the night. Since it was several hours before sunrise, I figured I was safe. However, the moon was rising behind me and while it had not yet appeared above the horizon, the sky behind me had begun to lighten. This was just enough for them to spot me. BTW, this happened in RFB.

[Hinrich Schwab]

Originally Posted by TorpX

I'll go along with the previous post, and add a couple things:

1. TMO increased the range that IJN ships can fire at you. Some people had the view that because cruisers have guns that range 20,000 yds., they should be shooting 20,000 yds. Also, as has already been said, there was a desire to "spice up the game".

2. Schwartzritter's caution about sunlight applies to the moon, as well. I was spotted after patiently tracking a TB on the surface in the middle of the night. Since it was several hours before sunrise, I figured I was safe. However, the moon was rising behind me and while it had not yet appeared above the horizon, the sky behind me had begun to lighten. This was just enough for them to spot me. BTW, this happened in RFB.

I am glad I am not the only one that sees TMO's uber-AI as flawed. If I take a pounding, I want it to be because I legitimately made a mistake, not because of fake difficulty because someone else thinks that the game is dull. If I smoke a convoy and slink away without a scratch, it is because I did something right, not because of a wimpy AI. I played the U-boat missions and had a pretty nasty go with 5 destroyers with the stock AI while I was in the Type IXD2 pig. Luck and skill allowed me to sneak away after sinking an objective troop carrier and I was grazed by an errant depth charge in the process with minimal damage. Using the philosophy behind the TMO AI, I would have been killed or crippled because someone thinks that you are supposed to get depth charged every time you get within range of a destroyer. For the people that like this kind of challenge. More power to them. I do not share this view.

About the gun range issue, I read that ~20,000 yards is the maximum range for the caliber gun on most escorts. However, the uber-AI eliminates the human error resulting from parallax and curvature of the Earth in targeting, meaning that the guns are much more effective at maximum range than historical information would indicate.

Regarding the lighting and visibility, I read about that in the RFB book or thread somewhere. Too bad there is no almanac or ephemeris to tell players what moon phase is up. SHII has one by default, but that feature never made it into the other games.

[TorpX]

Well, I can understand Ducimus (and others') desire to make the game more challanging. It is to be expected that some people will play the game more, and in doing so will discover the AI's weak points. There are also aspects of the game that give the player the advantage (depending on how one plays), so there is a choice of either accepting the game more or less as is, or goosing up the AI capabilities some to compensate for the deficency. I kind of like what you said about having the AI so there is a high level of uncertainty for the player, though.


If I had my own computer game company (developing SH 6), I would handle this by having an optional dynamic campaign, of a fictional nature. This would negate the advantage of history buffs knowing what is going to happen, where battles will be fought, where the most traffic will go, and how well the weapons (yours or theirs) will perform. This I would do with random functions, so every such campaign would be unique. Otherwise, it is hard to put the player in the shoes of their historical counterparts, who had to react to events, day by day, with no historical precognition.

[Hinrich Schwab]

Originally Posted by TorpX

Well, I can understand Ducimus (and others') desire to make the game more challanging. It is to be expected that some people will play the game more, and in doing so will discover the AI's weak points. There are also aspects of the game that give the player the advantage (depending on how one plays), so there is a choice of either accepting the game more or less as is, or goosing up the AI capabilities some to compensate for the deficency. I kind of like what you said about having the AI so there is a high level of uncertainty for the player, though.


If I had my own computer game company (developing SH 6), I would handle this by having an optional dynamic campaign, of a fictional nature. This would negate the advantage of history buffs knowing what is going to happen, where battles will be fought, where the most traffic will go, and how well the weapons (yours or theirs) will perform. This I would do with random functions, so every such campaign would be unique. Otherwise, it is hard to put the player in the shoes of their historical counterparts, who had to react to events, day by day, with no historical precognition.

I like the dynamic campaign idea. It presents something completely different. There can be AI scripts based on a standardized difficulty, rather than an attempt to re-create a historical mean level of performance, which is much harder to do. As far as the "unknown" factor in judging an individual platform's competence, I think this would add an element of suspense and the need for good judgment on the part of the player to deal with upon each encounter.

The biggest "enemy" in sims is predictability. It doesn't matter how hard or easy an AI is if it is predictable. Worrying sick about a destroyer, only to find out that Bernard is the skipper can rob one of convoy kills due to excess caution. Likewise, running into too many Bernard destroyers sets one up for an HMS Walker the hard way. Keep a player guessing and everything flows.

[WernherVonTrapp]

With all due respect Schwartzritter, you're critiquing TMO and, according to your first post ("The TMO AI is pretty brutal. From what I have read") you haven't even tried it. I'm not trying to say that you'd like it. I'm just having difficulty reconciling your opinion of the mod w/o having played it.
Personally, I like TMO and do not find the AI overwhelming. Challenging yes, overwhelming no. I think you might actually be surprised if you ever fire it up.

[Stealhead]

Honestly I can agree to some extent with Schwartzritter.I have been playing TMO for some time and I honestly grew tired of the AI it is way too good in certain areas but really stupid in others.I think that the AI stock is lame and the AI in TMO is very challenging but not very realistic some of the load outs are not very realistic either.In certain areas the AI is uber but in others TMOs AI is very easy to outsmart at least for me.I am not trying to say that TMO is a bad mod by any means I just feel that it trades off some realism to make the AI harder I agree that you should not get DCed every time you attack submerged many times subs from various naval forces completed an attack and received no depth charging because the enemy was either not skilled enough or form various other conditions.

An example: I have played TMO so much that I have gotten very good at the tricks needed to avoid getting attacked after you attack while submerged you just simply pull the plug and go deep as soon as your last fish is out the tube and begin your escape most times the AI never finds me because they more or less go blind once you go under a thermal layer not every time but if you get into good position pre attack and start your evasion you get away Scot free. Something else I have noticed is that sometimes after a night attack the aI shot dozens of star shells right above my position in the sky yet they often no one comes over and searches the area below the Star shells strange because they would find me.

Flip side of the coin: I have seen some cargo ships have unbelievable either sound abilities or super duper lookouts (I am not talking about the Q ships either) this is one of the small tankers.On tow occasions I have had them some how discover torpedoes on very dark nights much to far away for it to be reasonable.

Honestly the AI was what made me like TMO a long time ago but I guess for me using the same attack patterns that best helped me avoid the AI that wound up making the game get very repetitive.

As of late I have been really enjoying Operation Monsun which I feel has a very balanced and more realistic AI sometimes they spot you and give make you fight for your life other times they just cant find you.

Last night I made an attack on a convoy above Finland and the seas where rough which was to my advantage as I was in the final run of my approach I suddenly saw a armed trawler less than 1000 meters from me he was pulling a random search pattern i had just missed him in the darkness and obscuring waves and it was so exciting to have him so close will he hear me or will I not get noticed?

I had to press on because my approach was against the head ships in the two rows(it was a small convoy by OM standards 12 merchants 6 in each row) the trawler was so close as I was ready to fire at the more distant vessel I could hear its screw roaring near by each second I dread the sound of a ping I fired two fish at each ship but I had to wait on the second nearer ship now less than 1000m from me lest he evade when the first ship got hit all the time fearing the trawler he was so near if he detected me wed surely get rammed.By some luck he did not and I destroyed both merchants and in the confusion caused by being so close the escorts just did not thin I was as close as I was.

In another attack on a mid Atlantic convoy in an XI/C a made a successful attack on two merchants one sinking the other being severally damaged this time a shot from farther away a slipped though a gap however I made the mistake of selecting a desired depth on the depth gauge rather than order dive planes to deep dive that was an error and it cost me because this time the Royal Navy was out for blood and my mistake to order a slower dive helped them to spot me I got nailed by a near miss and spent several hours trying to evade and to repair serious systems damage I escaped only because the escort started hitting on some other sound that they thought was the sub.I also like how in OM they tend to drop a much more spread out in depth pattern this is much more historically accurate.

The TMO AI simply does not allow you to get that close ever getting that close is almost a 100% guarantee of being spotted and that to me takes away from the game you know in TMO if you do certain things you will get spotted when it should be more along the lines of if you do it well you have good chance of getting very very close even to an escort if you make a low sound profile to the near escort in my experience with TMO no matter what(except perhaps a full blown storm) the conditions no matter how well you hide your profile and screws from prying ears you can only go so far and they will spot you.

I am sure some TMO players will say other wise or say you are not doing it right but to me the AI in TMO is too skilled and as a result it actually can limit what you can do in the game more than it should.

I want a more unknown factor here might be a crack escort unit or a poor one today is my lucky day or today is my unlucky day,the fog of war you win you lose sometimes your side has a good day sometimes the other side does.OM seems to better provide this.

TMO is a great mod but I feel that some treat it as the best most accurate mod from a AI difficulty stand point in that respect I must disagree as I have read more about WWII submarine warfare I have felt that TMO has un-realistic AI challenging yes overwhelming no.

@WernherVonTrapp actually I think that a member of this forum if they read though the threads and such actually can have a good idea what a given mod is like they can surely choose that they disagree with a given mods design philosophy that is their choice.That is why there are so many different mods TMO has much harder AI,RFB in the most historically accurate,FOTRS is gap between stock and TMO,OM covers the Germans and generally follows the philosophy of RFB.

TMOs big "selling point" is the harder AI and it does say right from the start in the manual for TMO the reasoning behind the AI changes.

[Hinrich Schwab]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

Flip side of the coin: I have seen some cargo ships have unbelievable either sound abilities or super duper lookouts (I am not talking about the Q ships either) this is one of the small tankers.On tow occasions I have had them some how discover torpedoes on very dark nights much to far away for it to be reasonable.

Honestly the AI was what made me like TMO a long time ago but I guess for me using the same attack patterns that best helped me avoid the AI that wound up making the game get very repetitive.

AI inflexibility will ruin a sim. I already stated this. I feel the same way about what I am experiencing in SHII. All of the old threads in the archives say how uber the AI is in the old game. However, they fall for the same stupid tactic every time; 1 point-blank torpedo at 800m bow-on-bow. I lose a torpedo to use on the convoy, but trade hassle-free hunting for it. The super-lookouts on merchants would really make me mad. I can see it on rare occasions, but they are merchants, not trained combat mariners. When a tanker or trawler spots running fish better than a DD or DE, something is wrong.

@Vontrapp where does Schwartzritter definitively say that he has never played TMO he obviously must have tried it if was able to read the PDF manual.

Actually, I heavily implied it with my words and he rightly called me out on it. No, I haven't played TMO. Seeing that statement in the manual is what killed it for me. The complaint threads helped, but it was the line in the manual.

[Stealhead]

Yeah typed that and then got a connection drop or something funny happend and it sent it I was going to cut it out before posting but had to edit it out.

I agree with the AI inflexibility which is why I am liking OM so much right now it has a much better mix up AI wise you just do not know and it seems that they patrol in a much more protective pattern in TMO if they have you pegged most times every escort comes charging I dislike this because that is not escorting if you leave your coverage area you just left a gap for another sub to make an attack.(I know that does not happen in game but you get the picture)

In TMO they usually drop all the DCs in a pass at around the same depth which means if they have you well placed you are in for it but if they are wrong you are safe.In OM they drop one charge at 100 one at 150 one at 200(guessing but they better space the drops with the last one being deepest) this was the most effective method used in WWII one of the reasons why the US Navy pushed for deep divers was because the extra depth increased the chance that a DC pattern would miss because the odds where much lower at 300 ft of even the last and deepest DC of a pattern being close enough to cause serious damage was much lower. Game play wise
I feel that this type of staggered pattern is in fact more dangerous because they are more likely to hit you if you are deeper than they think and if they have your depth fairly then you have a very good chance of getting hit by two DCs.I have not played in a long time but I think RFB has similar AI maybe a little more predictable though.

For the most part in WWII on any side if the crew took the correct actions and the CO remained calm the sub had a very good chance of coming out unharmed even if it got a few close runs made the even most German subs got taken out by something other than getting DCed alone it was really allied aircraft that hurt them so much.

[Hinrich Schwab]

Originally Posted by WernherVonTrapp

With all due respect Schwartzritter, you're critiquing TMO and, according to your first post ("The TMO AI is pretty brutal. From what I have read") you haven't even tried it. I'm not trying to say that you'd like it. I'm just having difficulty reconciling your opinion of the mod w/o having played it.
Personally, I like TMO and do not find the AI overwhelming. Challenging yes, overwhelming no. I think you might actually be surprised if you ever fire it up.

I accept criticism for dispensing a judgment without trying the mod. I am not going to try and talk my way around that. However, reading the quote from the manual really left a foul taste in my mouth. I interpreted this as, "If you aren't getting nuked by destroyers, the AI is too easy." I just felt the philosophy behind the AI changes was wrong and seeing all of the threads involving players of all stripes getting trashed by the AI set my views regarding the mod. I am working with a new campaign using Real Fleet Boat, which I know has its own brand of AI idiosyncrasies, but I have not heard anywhere near the complaints about the AI. As such, I have no real motivation to try TMO.

Take my opinion for what it is worth. If you feel my preconceived take on this invalidates my opinion, so be it. Nothing personal, but a mod whose AI changes are motivated out of "adding excitement" usually result in making an AI that punishes a player for playing.