TMO vs RFB

[Rockin Robbins]

Actually it's pretty amazing. The guiding principles of RFB and TMO are completely opposed.

Trigger Maru Overhauled
TMO came from Ducimus' migration from SH3 and his observation that challenges were few in his new game. So, for his own use, he developed Trigger Maru to increase the difficulty of the game. He did NOT stick with objective reality when he did so. ASW capabilities of Japanese escorts were ratcheted up to frankly unrealistic levels. They can find you and depth charge you with deadly accuracy without pinging sometimes. They are VERY aggressive. If you run into an elite crew on a Japanese escort you are dead unless you kill him. For that reason, there is only one elite crew in Trigger Maru: Bungo Pete.

The nav map was nerfed to reflect more accurately the info that would really be developed by the plotting crew for the captain. Ship silhouettes are gone, replaced by a position dot, because the radar did not tell you what kind of ship you had detected. Friend/foe/neutral colors are gone for the same reasons. Boats no longer have velocity vector tails that tell you without any analysis on your part what their course is. And the "x" for the projected impact point in the attack screen is gone. Although done for the purpose of increasing difficulty, these changes had an effect that possibly wasn't intended. Running SH4 with map updates on is now more realistic than leaving map updates off, especially if your sub has radar.

And what the heck is realism anyway? Tater observed that in Trigger Maru, unrealistic enemy behavior results in extremely realistic player behavior. You are properly operating in fear for your life. Wow! How authentic! Therefore you do not take stupid chances. You cannot just duck below the thermal layer, put it on silent running and go eat lunch. You will be dead when you return. When being depth charged, you MUST evade. They will kill you. Be afraid. Very afraid. It's wonderful

RFB
Real Fleet Boat was originated from the standpoint of reading patrol reports and attempting to reproduce the results reflected therein with accuracy, who cares about gameplay glitter. After war statistics said that only one of 20 boats were sunk. Therefore depth charges were nerfed to the point that you had a 95% chance of living through your career. Enemy AI was left alone. Attack map and nav map were left alone. Based on cruise reports from WWII, the deck gun was altered so its firing rate reflected the rates from actual combat use, not a test stand on terra firma. People had lots of fun fighting over that one, especially land lubber artillery experts. Then the effectiveness of deck gun shells was nerfed. If cruise reports said it took 85 shells to sink a small freighter, that's what RFB takes. You'll spend the greater part of an hour to sink one and you'll be just waiting to be plastered by a plane all that time. Welcome to reality.

The last version of RFB I played was Beery's last one. I switched to TMO during the uncertainty time and after SH4 went to patch 1.4 and RFB was no longer compatible enough. So I can't comment on later versions. I do know that with Beery's version I never had to go deep. I could stay at periscope depth and watch myself being depth charged. If they hit me it wasn't fatal. I just charged through the screen into the merchies and wrecked havoc. It didn't matter if I were detected or not.

As soon as I saw a ship or detected it on radar, I just went to my nav map. If it was green it was friendly, red it was enemy. The silhouette told me the general ship type so I knew speed capability, whether it was merchant or warship. I could immediately plot the course from the velocity vector without any investigation on my own part.

I'll leave it there as RFB has a lot of changes under Swdw's leadership and I'm in no position to comment on them. Much may have changed. I'll have to let one of the RFB team describe their mod better.

My own progression
Although I agreed with Beery's addiction to reality and faithfulness to it, I came to the realization that the final result wasn't realistic. I was Rambo, invulnerable enough not to fear, with superhuman shooting ability because of my stock nav plot. I was ready to change to a Trigger Maru I was prepared to hate because of its lack of realism.

My first cruise was brutal. I had Superman in those escorts charging me through the fog without pinging me first and dropping deadly accurate depth charges. I hopped right into the TM forum and blasted Ducimus, who set me straight with the simple observation of "who said TM was realistic?" In otherwords "get with the program." He also pointed out that in my account of what I did I had written a textbook on proper evasion tactics. And I realized suddenly that I had learned more in one test mission from hell than all the previous months I had played Silent Hunter 4. Suddenly I was not frustrated that I hadn't sunk the merchies. I was overjoyed that I had survived. And the thought hit me: THAT is real realism.

In its later incarnations, TMO has become more and more a realism mod. Ducimus has been influenced by the evil RFB crew (helped them even) and incorporated many realistic details into TMO: evil enemy aircraft that can depth charge you at periscope depth (also part of RFB if I recall correctly). Properly nerfed deck gun so you realize why they no longer appear on any submarines. They were a lousy idea that never worked, unless you count foolishly courting death as a good idea.

I think in the end, these two mods, originated for very different goals have converged to the point that it would be difficult even to say which is more realistic than the other. About the only thing you might say now is that TMO is definitely more challenging. And what is YOUR definition of reality.

Is it reality of enemy behavior and reality of results? Then RFB is your mod.

Is is reality found in YOUR behavior and attitude? Is fear part of reality in war that you want to experience? Are you willing to have your career without the assurance that you will probably survive all the way to the end of the war? Look at TMO then.

Disclaimer
I'm not an RFB expert any more. I have simplified the changes that TMO has made in the game (and RFB too) to convey my own subjective impressions of both. I can be wrong sometimes, and this comparison is very subjective. Even if I'm right, you might come to a different observation that is equally right. Especially the RFB guys should come and present their case better than I can. If Ducimus were here he could do the same. I'm not the best to do this but I'm what you got.:rotfl:

[Mush Martin]

Ive played both but I by and large am and RFB player
both are excellent mods though.&

[IronPerch]

Thanks for the comments i was looking for Capt. Robins!

I have spend most of my game time also with the TMO and i installed it due to forum/web references it had. Anyway round week ago i somehow messed my mod setup and i decided to reinstall everything and this time with RFB just to give it a try. I tested it with the torpedo training mission and i was sunk by a aircraft during the first minutes... in a training mission! One should watch his periscope behaviour... Hopefully it wasn't a bug.

It seems that there has been progress since your RFB trials, because the map information you spoke about is gone and it's quite similar to TMO (black dot, no trails...) also the whole attack map is gone so you can't optimize or fine tune your firing solution with it. I also like the control buttons and functions (+ compass rose etc) and the idea that you have to be in certain place (e.g. conning tower) to activate certain features. Also moving the camera inside the ship works better than in TMO (?). It also seems to run with the NSM wihout problems and the early war torpedo behaviour modelling makes you plan your attacs more carefully.

About the realism, for me it also the "fear" aspect that gives me shivers and makes the game worth of playing. Anyway after installing RFB i have been depth charged only once (one has to sleep and work sometimes...) and i managed to escape quite easilly (but i hope that was because i was between two convoys (!) crossing each others lines and i dove under the one i didn't attact), so i can't tell much about the ai behaviour. Hopefully it is not what you told me.

So, RFB so far so good, but i miss TMO's loading screens...

... the sound mod i spoke earlier... i decided to build my own mix.

[Mush Martin]

Originally Posted by IronPerch

Thanks for the comments i was looking for Capt. Robins!

I have spend most of my game time also with the TMO and i installed it due to forum/web references it had. Anyway round week ago i somehow messed my mod setup and i decided to reinstall everything and this time with RFB just to give it a try. I tested it with the torpedo training mission and i was sunk by a aircraft during the first minutes... in a training mission! One should watch his periscope behaviour... Hopefully it wasn't a bug.

It seems that there has been progress since your RFB trials, because the map information you spoke about is gone and it's quite similar to TMO (black dot, no trails...) also the whole attack map is gone so you can't optimize or fine tune your firing solution with it. I also like the control buttons and functions (+ compass rose etc) and the idea that you have to be in certain place (e.g. conning tower) to activate certain features. Also moving the camera inside the ship works better than in TMO (?). It also seems to run with the NSM wihout problems and the early war torpedo behaviour modelling makes you plan your attacs more carefully.

About the realism, for me it also the "fear" aspect that gives me shivers and makes the game worth of playing. Anyway after installing RFB i have been depth charged only once (one has to sleep and work sometimes...) and i managed to escape quite easilly (but i hope that was because i was between two convoys (!) crossing each others lines and i dove under the one i didn't attact), so i can't tell much about the ai behaviour. Hopefully it is not what you told me.

So, RFB so far so good, but i miss TMO's loading screens...

... the sound mod i spoke earlier... i decided to build my own mix.

uhm I must be doing something wrong because my RFB still has an
attack map and I refine solutions with it constantly???????????

[IronPerch]

Originally Posted by Mush Martin

uhm I must be doing something wrong because my RFB still has an
attack map and I refine solutions with it constantly???????????

hmm... looks different than mine. Which version you are using? I have 1.5 installation (U-boat add-on) and the followign mods:

NSM Classic
PE3.3 with Environmental 4.7 scene.dat -file.
RFB 1.51 (the latest available)
RSRD for RFB (+ patches)
BEST_OF_SH4_FX (my own sound collection)

When playing with the Vanilla SH4 and TMO i somehow felt that the attack map that updates realtime was kind of cheating (didn't use it at all).

I'm not currently able to post a screenshot, so if someone using the same RFB could do it for me?

[Brenjen]

Originally Posted by IronPerch

hmm... looks different than mine. Which version you are using? I have 1.5 installation (U-boat add-on) and the followign mods:

NSM Classic
PE3.3 with Environmental 4.7 scene.dat -file.
RFB 1.51 (the latest available)
RSRD for RFB (+ patches)
BEST_OF_SH4_FX (my own sound collection)

When playing with the Vanilla SH4 and TMO i somehow felt that the attack map that updates realtime was kind of cheating (didn't use it at all).

I'm not currently able to post a screenshot, so if someone using the same RFB could do it for me?

Here ya' go:

[tigone]

Rockin Robbins wrote:

> The guiding principles of RFB and TMO are completely opposed. . . .

Thanks for a really helpful discussion of the two mods. I'm new to SH4, and opted for TMO to start, but you've reinforced my sense that I really must try RFB at some point as well. After having started several careers in TMO -- with exactly one patrol completed -- I can say with little hesitation that playing TMO with a "dead is dead" rule is, well an uphill climb.

But the observation that unrealistic enemy behavior prompts highly realistic player behavior is a critical one. You also noted, "and what is YOUR definition of reality?" It may be worth sharing a short anecdote that, I think, illustrates the difference between accuracy and realsim very, very well.

Years ago, I read an interview with the guy who designed the sets for the film The Hunt for Red October. The Navy had given him and his team unprecedented access to a 688 boat to take photos, measurements, etc., except for a few, highly-classified pieces of equipment. But the set designer discovered that, apart from a few high-tech gizmos, the inside of a modern U.S. submarine doesn't look hugely different than a World War II model. So instead of recreating U.S.S. Dallas in exact detail as it actually is, he made a number of small changes to conform to peoples' expectations of what it's like. And in keeping with the good guys v. bad guys theme, he fitted the interior sets with soft, almost pastel lighting, and added lots of small, informal props and touches that added to the personal, almost familial feel of the boat on screen. He was less recreating the actual physical reality of the boat (accuracy) than using that as a basis to create something that would "feel right" to the viewer (realism). In the article he said something to the effect that, it doesn't matter onscreen if something, in fact, is accruate; if it doesn't meet the audiences' expectations at least to some degree, it's going to be perceived as inaccurate.

Similarly with the Red October sets -- no one had any idea what the inside of a Typhoon looked like, so the set designer very consciously and intentionally made it look like a submarine Death Star: all black and chrome, with harsh lighting and lots of red glowing bits. Even the Soviet uniforms are suggestive -- all formal uniforms with brass buttons and high collars, in contrast to the shirtsleeve khakis on Dallas. The contrast between the two boats is neither subtle nor accidental.

But back to gaming, because I think this same principle applies here as it does in movies. Accuracy is objective; either the height of this ship's mast in the game is correct or it's not. Realism, though -- the feel, the affective domain in which the game connects with the player -- is much more subjective, and arguably harder to attain. While both accuracy and realism are criticial in an historical game like SH4, the realism factor remains even when there's no real-life counterpart to measure accuracy by (think of almost any science fiction game title). It's good to see that mod designers for SH4 really seem to understand this, and understand that there's more than one approach to attaining both accuracy and realism.

[banjo]

Rockin'--great post man. I've been playing both mods off and on as they progress and didn't realize a lot of the points you made. I currently play TMO and was wondering why I still got depth charged yesterday in 1944 at 500' after an hour of doing the 'right things'. I got the Yamato (3 torps at 20', 25' and 20') but did not survive the depth charging. There were only 2 DD's but when my external view showed some depth charges exploding below me (!) I knew I was in trouble. After reading your post I have a better idea why.

[Sailor Steve]

And once again Rockin Robbins shows why he, despite his self-proclaimed 'lack of expertise', is the go-to guy when it comes to talking about mods and reality and submarine gaming in general. Even though I still can't play SH4 seriously, reading your treatise (and I can't call it anything less than that) I was put in mind of the exact same cycle with SH3, and everything you said is right on the mark for that sim as well.

Originally Posted by tigone

But back to gaming, because I think this same principle applies here as it does in movies. Accuracy is objective; either the height of this ship's mast in the game is correct or it's not. Realism, though -- the feel, the affective domain in which the game connects with the player -- is much more subjective, and arguably harder to attain. While both accuracy and realism are criticial in an historical game like SH4, the realism factor remains even when there's no real-life counterpart to measure accuracy by (think of almost any science fiction game title). It's good to see that mod designers for SH4 really seem to understand this, and understand that there's more than one approach to attaining both accuracy and realism.

That description of Hunt For Red October is brilliant! But it's that last paragraph that struck me. My background over the decades has been in tabletop miniatures gaming, and one of the biggest arguments in game design has always been 'Realism versus Playability', which of course equates 'Realism' with 'Detail-oriented'. I came to a conclusion years ago that 'Realism' was a bad choice of words, and always substitute 'Feel' instead. I came to the same realization that you apparently have, and that RR wrote so well: that how real it is is nowhere near as important as how real it feels.

On the other hand I learned recently that 'Realism' is indeed the right word. During one of those debates in which someone was saying "It's not real! You can't die, so it can never be realistic!", it finally occurred to me to look the word up. It was coined less than two hundred years by the Art World to describe a particular kind of art - one that places emphasis on making the viewer feel as though he is part of the picture; really there. So we strive for realism, and pretend a lot, and argue about which mod is better, and complain when it's too 'realistic'.

[tigone]

Sailor Steve wrote:

> My background over the decades has been in tabletop miniatures gaming,
> and one of the biggest arguments in game design has always been 'Realism
> versus Playability', which of course equates 'Realism' with 'Detail-oriented'.

Yes, that's the easy equivalency. And like most easy equivalencies, it's wrong.

One can make a game (and I'm coming from a board wargaming background here) infinitely complicated, all for sake of supposed "realism," and end up getting it completely wrong. Complexity is not, in itself, an improvement in game design, and if it leads to confusion or fatigue in players, it's explicitly a bad thing, because it discourages gameplay and reduces whatever gain they might have attained by it.

I like small-scale, tactical games (especially naval subjects), and I enjoy the detail and understanding they convey. But at the same time, I cannot stand flipping back and forth between tables printed on (it seems) ever-decreasing font size on cardstock. The sheer friction of digging out the box, setting up the data sheets and ships' logs is off-putting, so Ironclads, Submarine, Close Action! and Royal Navy sit on the shelf, while the my study echoes with the sound of SH4's dive klaxon.

[tigone]

A follow-up:

I have finally also come to acknowledge -- after years of vociferous denial -- that my favorite part of any board wargame is reading the designer's notes and studying the mechanics of it, usually more than actually playing the game itself. I think I have more games that I haven't actually played, than those I have.

[Peto]

Good points being made in this thread. I Completely agree with the comments about Realism vs PLayability. Squad Leader was a great Avalon Hill board game but through it's evolution to Advanced Squad Leader, it lost much of it's luster by becoming so complex in its attempt to re-enact reality. It became a game of two guys arguing about a rule regarding 23.4a... The whole "feel" became lost in the details.

Another important aspect that is easy to lose is our gift of "Hind-Sight". As we sit in front of our computers, we know that 20% of US submariners that went on war patrols were lost. In a game that tends to equate more to, "I have an 80% chance of making it so I'll risk it". That's quite different than how the crew felt, I'm sure...

While I lean toward the goal of realism, the best we can hope to attain IMO, is a solid balance between realism and game. Making the equipment of the time as realistic as possible is quite a task--even finding reliable information for creating an historical mod can be daunting. I have great respect for the lengths the RFB Team goes to be able to make that a "reality" for SH4. Doing some testing for RFB has been very enjoyable--they're quite a Team--and I think that the next release of RFB will Rock!

Ducimus also deserves Kudos for TM. Much of his work has become the foundation for what other modders have accomplished. His openess about "how he did X" has helped anyone who mods or uses a mod. But I must also confess that the ferocity of his escorts make me wonder if he isn't just a little evil at heart :hmm:.

I'd like to do more modding myself but have learned that working on computers during the day + modding at night = Peto Burned Out and less effective at both. So I look to what others have done and are doing in the hope that the balance between "realism and game" equate to a product that suits my tastes. And I am Extremely Thankful for their efforts and Hard Work. And mainly--since I'm too lazy to create my perfect mod, I will never complain about what other modders have created for me to enjoy. Frankly--I don't have the right to do that.

Cheers!

Peto

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by tigone

I'm new to SH4, and opted for TMO to start, but you've reinforced my sense that I really must try RFB at some point as well.

Whew! That's a relief. I was afraid I'd made RFB sound like a bad mod. It is not. In fact, I believe it is the future of the fleet boat side of SH4.

I've been attempting to talk both groups of modders into a modular type setup where you could, as an RFB player for instance, plug in the TMO enemy AI if your own personal death seemed appealing at the time.

I've ripped out the TM keyboard layout as a separate mod and made it avilable to RFB players and others who want its advantages, like one key access to the attack map. Since the two rivals work together on so much anyway (hate to spoil any assumptions of the "hated rivals") these things seem like natural things to do for me.

[tigone]

Rockin Robbins wrote:

> Whew! That's a relief. I was afraid I'd made RFB sound like a bad mod. It is not.

I didn't get that impression at all. It wouldn't be as successful as it is if it were.

[swdw]

Sigh, RR really needs to try the latest versions of RFB.

Some of his thoughts on RFB are very out of date.

First, on the weak DC's in RFB. Depth charge adjustments were made in the newer RFB versions because they were too underpowered. This is something Beery wanted to do but hadn't got to. Tater's DC mod, which was also rolled into TMO with changes was the first step in this.

Next, the AI of the Japanese ASW has been adjusted. It is nothing like the AI he refers to from in the early versions of RFB, which were close to stock and needed a big rewrite. Peto's extended evasion mod was brought into RFB as the first step towards making this more realistic. That said, they are not as tough as TMO. However, don't expect a 75% (actual loss was 25% not 20%) survival rate unless you have a GOOD handle on evasion tactics. This survival rate that has been quoted includes the beginning of the war where the IJN set the DC's at 150 ft. Once the word got out, things changed. In 1943 the losses jumped dramatically and would have continued had it not been for the stranglehold on the raw materials and oil needed to continue asw measures at the same level.

On a side note- Remember the real survival number applies to boats skippered by officers with EXTENSIVE training in tactics before ever taking a command (the IJN setting the DC's improperly saved a LOT of american lives early in the war when training was poor).

Player losses should, and probably will be higher in RFB in the future until they understand tactics. This will be an ongoing process of hitting the right level.

RFB boats and deck crews are MUCH more vulnerable to surface fire than they used to be. Yet another change towards realism.

All in all, things have changed a LOT since the early version of RFB referred to by RR. So the best thing to do is follow the suggestion of others and try both TMO and RFB, then pick the one that suits YOU.