GWX and "Small Freighter"

[Corsair]

Originally Posted by VonHelsching

Hi Andreas!

I'm the damage model guy of GWX. Will check the small merchants in the game to identify which one you ar referring to and will get back to you.

In generel, Murphy's Law has great applications with a torpedo hit:

1) The randomised torpedo strength is always set at the lowest setting, while hitting the smallest ship
2) If the randomised torpedo strength is set at better than lowest setting, the torpedo hits on the wrong spot
3) If none of the above stand, then the ship never carries ammo, so it doesn't blow up
4) If all of the above stand, then the torpedo is a dud
5) If it is a dud, it is always the last torpedo you are carrying
6) Did I mention that while all of the above are happening, the weather does not permit you to use the DG?

Von

So true... :rotfl:

[Woof1701]

@AG124
I had this problem with both types of small merchants. The stock one, and the one with two derricks fore and aft. Yesterday I also came across a tramp steamer and put a torpedo right in the middle again. It steamed on happily as if nothing had happened, so I picked up speed, overtook it and dealt him a second torpedo. This time it slowed down to about 2 knots within the next few minutes. I again stayed with it for half a day and it didn't sink and continued on its course. Only after a DD was approaching and I got nervous an put a third torpedo into the aft section did it stop and immediately start to slip below the surface - aft section first.

@VonHelsching
Of course I'm aware of Murphy's Law in that respect However since torpedoes were designed to sink medium sized and even large vessels by exploding below the keel and so braking their backs - which most of the times is fatal to any ship - I think that something has to be done to make Murphy's law apply less often. So far I haven't managed to brake the back of a single ship with GWX. In my opinion even the lowest torpedo strength should be enough to sink any small ship while maybe only damaging medium or large merchants. In addition a high torpedo strenght should take out any medium sized ship and from time to time even a large ship. After all carrier HMS Ark Royal sank after about one day being hit by only one torpedo (was bad luck though, since the first torpedo killed the power plant needed to drive the pumps), HMS Courageous was hit by two torpedoes and sank within 15 minutes, USS Wasp was also killed by two (Japanese) torpedoes), HMS Eagle was hit by 4 torpedoes, former battleship USS Utah capzised in less then 10 minutes after being hit by only one Japanese areal torpedo in Pearl Harbor. Battleships Barham and Royal Oak more or less desintegrated after being hit by spreads of three and four torpedos. All of those ships had over 20.000 tons and were designed as warships with an armored hull whereas merchants were not armored. Large passenger liners Laconia (WWII) and Lusitania (WWI) were sunk by one, Athenia by two torpedoes.

Of course there are also stories like with the large tanker SS Ohio which was hit by an Italian torpedo, almost braking its back, and the being hit by bombs and even a Stuka falling onto the deck, and the ship still managed to get to Malta. However, it was more of a wonder and a good piece of luck, that the ship didn't break apart after the first torpedo hit.

To drive my point home: either the small ships are too strong, or the torpedoes too soft. I expect it is the first since I managed to sink an Italia-class BBs in a single mission with two torpedoes. I replayed the mission several times and also tried out the Barham mission and was also able to put this one down with two to three hits. I'm also aware what you were accomplishing by completely reworking the damage models. It makes sinkings much more varied and I'm really impressed by that, but using up two torpedoes for any small ship annoys me a little, since my Typ II only carries six of them

@Tikigod
Thanks. I must have overlooked your post. But that's EXACTLY what I wanted to say

I wasn't aware of the sliding deck cargo, but if that really could be implemented again it would be a really cool addition and I'm all for it!!

[bigboywooly]

Eh so you use 2 torpedos
You will also get a lot more targets than they did in RL
Many uboats never saw the enemy let alone sunk one

Pretty sure they would have liked the chance to sink a ship
Even with 2 torpedos

Now if the damage models were done in such a way each ship sank with 1 fish then your patrol tonnage would be astronomical
Of course the amount of available targets could be reduced to RL terms to counter act that
But who would want to make 3 or 4 patrols without seeing a ship

But that would be historical

[Iron Budokan]

I agree, use 2 torps. The days of cracking even a small merchant in half with one torp while you're running GWX are over. Well, they're not over. You can still do it. But it happens less often or so I've found.

[Tikigod]

Well, compare today's IED terrorists use with the concept of a torpedo. Both are designed to kill their targets near or underneath the vehicle. Obviously not all IED's are the same but, the principle still applies for most planted devices against vehicles. If you are driving an Armored Tank vs a HMMWV/car/truck which do you think will survive an IED attack? Rarely do you see a HMMWV survive. Yes, murphey's law still applies: it may rain in the desert, the triggering device may not be wired correctly, the target may get a flat tire before it reaches the kill zone, the democrats may pull the HMMWV out of Iraq, or a kid might come by and run off with the device, but, besides all that.... given the event that a target vehicle like an HMMWV does come in contact with an IED....the IED will win against the HMMWV 95-100% of the time. Even with armor plating the vehicles can't be used afterwards. As one soldier put it, the armor upgrades instead of allowing the shrapnel pass through your body now gives it a chance to stick inside it. This pretty much tells you who the odds favor.

Torpedos were designed to attack large ships, not small merchants. In one documentry with u.s. subs they mentioned how the crews wouldn't bother wasting tax payers money with a single torpedo since they could easily be sunk with deck guns or raiding parties. In my case above the seas were rough and my only other option was the torpedo.

Its fine that all ship strikes are not the same. The more variety, the better. But, like an IED vs. HMMWV/Truck example. I seriously doubt any small ship could survive an actual detonation from one torpedo. I'd like to be proved otherwise with ww2 footage of a torpedo strike on a small vessel (not a dud but, actual triggered detonation) in which the vessel stays seaworthy and continues on its course.

[rascal101]

HI I read this thread with interest. In relation to Woof1701's original question I wonder if the problem is not with torpedo strength, or what merchant he's attacking but rather a glitch or gremlin in his system, let me explain.

I remember a problem I had when I had two different mods installed, the original Grey Wolves and the original NYGM. I thought both mods were great for different reasons and coulnt see why I couldnt have both mods installed at the same time.

This was fine except for one thing that I discovered over time. Whenever I hit small merchants I would I would get some dimented fire ball accompanied by a roaring sound, I think it was to simulate an oil fire, except it woudl throw my PC's frame rate right out if I looked directly at the fire.

Worse still, the little ship would sink to about level with the deck and just sit there. No matter what I did, more torps, deck gun whatever it woudl just sit there. This happened so many times I just stopped attacking small merchants, until I worked out it was a conflict caused by the two mods. I think there were other's in the forums who reported similar.

I removed one of the mods and the problem with indestructable small merchants was resolved. I wonder if Woof1701's problem is that he's got a conflict some where in one of his mods which is throwing something out

[Woof1701]

@Tikigod
Thanks again. Exactly my point, although the comparison maybe is a little extreme

@bigboywooly

The problem with realism and historical accuracy is of course, that it's hard to achieve. Even though I understand you point I believe your reasoning in this case is flawed:

In the beginning of the war, most boats that went out actually DID encounter large amounts of ships and sank them and only returned home after they expended their ammo. How else do you explain the large tonnages some skippers accumulated in a very short time. Take Kretschmer for example. He started the war in a Typ II B and then got a Typ VII B (U-99). With this boat he sank 44 (of his total 46) ships in less than nine months between July 1940 and March 1941, totalling over 270.000 tons in only 8 patrols! When you split that up it's 5.75 ships per patrol with an average tonnage of about 33.750 tons per patrol and roughly 6000 tons per ship. Considering that at that time the uboat force still had problems with duds and deep running torpedoes I'd say that's a pretty good exploit. And he is no exception. Take apart some of those records below and you will find that some captains even had single patrols with 50000 and more tons! Statistically the Top 34 uboat captains had an average of 18604 tons per patrol. And that's more that I can say about me with vanilla SH3 at 94% realism. Most captains however, didn't live long enough to celebrate their successes.

Source: http://www.uboat.net/men/aces/top.htm

For later in the war I partially grant you that many uboats didn't get near a convoy at all within a patrol and didn't sink anything in weeks or even in a whole patrol. But also don't forget that some of those captains and crews were completely new to the job. Kids that had to succeed the masters who were either dead, ran a flotilla, or were POWs. Those boys often were still struggeling to run their boats properly and had no experience in ASW evasion. They learned all that from books and from teachers who hadn't experienced the newest technology of the Allies.

However - no matter if late in the war or early in the war - I believe we players go to far greater risks there, since we can simply save the game or start a new one. An option which didn't present itself to a real uboat crew. We can also fast-forward the time and don't have to deal with ugly things like sickness, malnutrition, low morale, terrible hygiene, boredom, horror, foul weather and fear of death!
We also KNOW history and when to expect which technology leap of the allies. Many crews were simply caught by surprise and never lived to tell the tale of radar, hedgehog and acoustic torpedoes. And most importantly: in SH3 there's no Bletchley Park cryptographers decyphering my radio messages and directing hunter-killer groups to my last known position as soon as I stake out a convoy. Since that's the way the Allies got to find and kill most uboats from mid 1943 onwards I consider that a significant advantage on our part.
BTW: For malfuntions and sabotage we now have SH3 Commander

So I have no problem with being a little better that the best were in reality. After all we have it much easier than them, and playing a game - even a historically acurate one - should be fun as well, shouldn't it? Call me narrow-minded, but for me the fun's deminishing when I'm forced to put a spread of 2 to 3 torpedoes into a tiny little tramp steamer.

[Tikigod]

Here is interesting read:

http://uboat.net/allies/technical/torpedo_problems.htm

"The failure to note the defect earlier was due to the BO's reluctance to test the torpedoes in peacetime. Fish cost $10,000 a piece, and it was considered prodigious to expend them on target practice. In comparison, a similar German torpedo cost RM 25,000-but the Germans never shied away from such "peacetime expenditures."

So, maybe a German Uboat captain would waste two torpedoes on a small target. But, our point is that in the event that one did actually detonate the explosion of one torpedo would most likely destroy such a small craft. Most of the articles talk about Murphey's Law in the terms that the detonators never went off or the torpedo would get stuck in the mud. I've never read an article about the design of the torpedo having problems with the actual explosion once it went off.

[heartc]

Check this out:



The warhead power in torpedoes hasn't changed much since WWII, something like 600lbs vs 650lbs, in case of MK14 and MK48 torpedo. Also, from most all information I've read, including from first hand accounts like Capt. Edward L. Beach, USN, one (detonating!) torpedo was usually enough to blow the target to hell. Neither Small Freighters, other Merchentman nor Destroyers were BB's like the Yamato. The Torpedo is a tool made specifically to destroy ships in a war. Freighters were not designed for war, and Destroyers were just tin cans. I don't know where the notion of "about 2 torpedoes seems right" comes from.

Oh and bigboywooly, the effect you describe is real. However, for numerous reasons including the ones given above by Woof1701, this is just a "fact of life" and true for all simulations. If we were to try and "nerf" simulated "careers" as per your approach, we could as well go ahead and shoot with rubber bullets in flightsims. Do we want to simulate an authentic "kill board" or a weapon system in a simulation? Anyone answering "both", is free to go and kill himself after being sunk in the sim. Will make for more authentic tonnage counts, no doubt.