About moral

[Safe-Keeper]

I just thought of something - weren't US subs sometimes in base for only one day or so?

In that case, I'd be for morale not going all the way back to 100%, actually. Imagine nearly escaping death, then returning and getting only four days off for repairs before you're going back in. God.

Although it seemed stupid to me first, now I'm actually playing with the idea of things such as charisma affecting crew morale and other features such as that. Ie. a hard officer who drives the crew in his compartment to work faster, but perhaps draining their morale and making them tired faster? Something like that?

[DeepSix]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

I just thought of something - weren't US subs sometimes in base for only one day or so?

Early on, yes, especially during the retreat to the Malay Barrier (Java) and then to Australia. Admiral Christie once took a boat back out after 1 day in port - and here the crew had come "home" expecting a good 2 weeks or so of R&R! I think that was Dealey's Harder; will have to look it up. Anyhow, it certainly would affect morale, I think.

In most cases, though, boats and crews got full rest and recuperation. On average, at any given time after Japan's initial successes, 1/3 of all the boats were on station, 1/3 were transiting to or from station, and 1/3 were in port.

Although it seemed stupid to me first, now I'm actually playing with the idea of things such as charisma affecting crew morale and other features such as that. Ie. a hard officer who drives the crew in his compartment to work faster, but perhaps draining their morale and making them tired faster? Something like that?

Yeah - don't know how you'd work out the math to incorporate that though, since charisma is by nature a qualitative rather than quantitative thing. But I agree, skipper ability had a profound affect on crew morale.

[Safe-Keeper]

Yeah - don't know how you'd work out the math to incorporate that though, since charisma is by nature a qualitative rather than quantitative thing. But I agree, skipper ability had a profound affect on crew morale.

Good point. What about breaking it up? Better at increasing/decreasing morale, work rate, etc.?

[DeepSix]

Well, if the sub's skipper was AI, it'd be easy. Just assign some skippers (e.g., Dick O'Kane or Ray Lamb) a morale value that would raise or lower crew morale. But since the player's the skipper, I honestly don't know. I don't know how the devs could assign morale values to player actions... although the more ships you sink, the higher I would think morale should be.... Don't know. Skipper impact on morale would be extremely difficult to do well.

[Safe-Keeper]

I was actually thinking of Officer impact on morale. If SH4 will have that system, that is.

[DeepSix]

Oh, I see. Well, Jim Calvert was reputedly the best TDC operator in the Pacific, so I can see how that could translate into a skill that might affect morale. Dick O'Kane was a good exec on Wahoo, but some of the crew thought he was a little crazy, so that might translate as well. That system might work. Tough to come up with reasonable values for each officer, though.... Wonder how they did it for SH3?

[Grey Legion]

No matter what the outcome more crew interaction is needed in any new version of SH. be it drag and drop or if it is done for you ( maybe a option ) I think this would help appeal to a larger groups of game players and of course that in-turn would lead into larger sales and maybe much more future support fo r the SH series.

I for one would like to see much more crew detail but for those who don't it can simply be made a option like auto or manual targeting.

[Threadfin]

Deepsix, have you read Calvert's book? He must have thought the reader would find detail on the TDC boring. Sub nuts like the guys around here would love that stuff of course. But I must admit to being somewhat disappointed in his book because of the lack of detail (as I percieved it) about the operation and capabilities of the TDC, and especially on Jack, which was a very successful boat (despite the H.O.R.s ). Still a fine book in the general sense.

[DeepSix]

Yes, I read it; I loved it and thought he was such a good storyteller. His honesty and sincerity about his experiences were surprising. Reading it, it struck me that it was like listening to a grandfather - less formal and more personal. I think he may have left out a lot of the TDC stuff out of the sense of modesty that almost all veterans acquire with age. As Edward Beach wrote in the foreword:

Here now we read Jim's version of how it happened, told modestly, as it has to be. Nevertheless there is enough between the lines to make it clear that the author and his TDC had an affinity seldom seen.

And as Calvert himself says,

The writing of memoirs, of whatever time of one's life, is an act of considerable egotism....

But anyhow - I sound like I'm trying to change your mind about the book, but I'm not. To each his own, and I know what you're saying about certain details being left out or skimmed over. For instance, he really doesn't 'fess up to the epic accomplishment of bagging three transports with a "going away" shot at 5,000 yards! As you say, it may have been that he thought casual readers would find it boring. Or maybe he thought that, since others had already written firsthand accounts that discussed the technical stuff in more detail, his should take a different approach. Whatever the reason, I kept getting the feeling that his unspoken words were, "I did my job like everybody else; here's what it was like." And he wrote about it without second-guessing it, or overplaying it, or downplaying it, or apologizing for it, or bragging about it. I think it's a testament to his abilities that, as the youngest and least experienced officer aboard, he was given the TDC operator's job.

I came away with great respect for him. (Can you tell?)

[Shadow9216]

How about the qual system being a little more in-depth, and having more of an impact? Just freewheeling here, you guys talk about having illness strike the crew- if your corpsman was well-qual'd he could "heal" them; if not, you cut the patrol short. Historically there were two corpsmen who performed at-sea appendectomies; both sailors survived. The Barb had an officer suffer a heart attack, and rescued several emaciated POWs, all of whom survived thanks to the skill of her "doc".

Gunners, torpedomen, WOs, all could have drastically improved reaction times, skills, etc if properly managed. I realize this was the intent in SH3, so let's carry it to the logical conclusion.

Can you imagine installing radar, yet not having someone skilled enough to use it properly? Repair it, etc?

[Wilko]

Yeah having the crew aspect being more in depth could be fun but I would want it to be a toggle function as for some/alot of people it could end up a PITA and be cause of alot of complaints.

If implemented right I see it as being a very good thing that will add alot of immersion to our patrols and something that will be looked foward to but at the same time there will be those that want to get out there and sink things and just have the Exo take care of things and be the Captain that just issues orders and racks up the tonnage

[Threadfin]

Deepsix, nice reply mate. Cheers

[DeepSix]

Originally Posted by Threadfin

Deepsix, nice reply mate. Cheers

Thanks for putting up with the hero-worship! BTW, both Friedman's U.S. Submarines Through 1945 and Roscoe's U.S. Submarine Operations in World War II have lots of juicy info on TDC and tactics in general (if you haven't already read them). Friedman is a little dry, IMO - Roscoe's an easier read.