Destroyers Discussion (getting rid of pin point drops)

[Marhkimov]

Ok ok, just make your personal tweeks, and someone will be by later to do the modding..

[CB..]

to be honest guys i'm not happy that this is the way it's panned out-- i've been testing bia the campaign engine since the game came out and have never gotten any results that i really liked - that didn't- especailly after the patch--get randomised so much that they became meaningless---

what is it about destroyer behaviour that game devs find so hard to re-create--?

i'm not looking forward to testing back in the campaign engine again i must admit--it was a fairly thankless task--with completly un certain results---the only way i could get relatively consitent results was commenting out all the crew ratings from the campaign.rnd--

hopefully there's another way---i'll try the dat /cfg edits you show G' and see how i get on--

last night i tried again to test the concept of adding bold to a DD using the info Red supplied this i think is the way to do it

[Equipment 19]
NodeName=W03
LinkName=wpn_BoldsLauncher
StartDate=19380101
EndDate=19420101

[Equipment 20]
NodeName=W03
LinkName=wpn_BoldsLauncher
StartDate=19420101
EndDate=19451231

but i didn't see any bolds launchs from the DD --the game didn't crash tho--so that's something--

chances are either
it's the wrong node--;
there's no ammo--
it needs more of "deep" hack---

[Redwine]

Well ... i am sticky at same place, not bad, but slow progress.

I am walking on the edge of a knive, balancing for dont fall into CB problem (dummy DDs) or my original problem (Cancerbero DDs).

Finally i let all Sim.cfg values as stock, and i manage DDs lethality with sensors beam angles.

The problem was if i adjust an average settings, the early sensors become too easy, may be real, and later sensors become so hard, may be real too.

But for gameplay and enjoy i want a little hard on all, not poor, and not a hell with no survive provability.

Then i start rising-up the early sensors, and slow down the later sensors.

Plus i tweak the bolds (decoys) as ahelp to eavade later DDs.

I am testing on many single mission, not test on campaign yet.

I am attempting to make the sub near to undetected when depth and slow, it may be real, any way you can not sink anything in that way, you must to rise periscope and take speed to maneuver.

I am not satisfied with my results yet, but looks good, the main problem is a little change in beam angles produce a big change in DDs behavior, i need to start up a fine adjust degree by degree.

Will help a lot of if anybody can discover how to manage those long hexe numbers for sensivity and noise.

still working.

What are you doing boys, nothing ? back to job ! :rotfl:


PD :

@ CB : sorry i was looking for how to introduce the bolds or bolds launchers, and no way.
Any way i can not understand well your idea.
Do you want the DDs produce a some kind of noise to disturb them seves ?

[CB..]

Originally Posted by Redwine

@ CB : sorry i was looking for how to introduce the bolds or bolds launchers, and no way.
Any way i can not understand well your idea.
Do you want the DDs produce a some kind of noise to disturb them seves ?

that was pretty much the thought of it

would have the same effect as noisy DC's but thought it might be easier to do--the DD's don't carry bold ammo tho - so i need to some how add bold ammo to the DD's--probably easier to add some noise to the DC's some how--

i can't bring myself to start testing the sensor stuff again untill i've built up some more enthusiasm again--- so i thought the bold thing might be a distraction for a while--

[gouldjg]

Redwine

I think I am almost the same as you as far as results are showing.

CFG basically the same but changes to sensors do appear to have effects in game for me, but only after I delete the copy file as I have learned.

I am running by the theory that every crewrating adds extra nerfs onto already nerfed sensors.

Some are too dumbed down and some are too dumbed up.

I am training my level4 crew up in the game to do what I want them to do regardless of how silly the figures may appear to be out.


My suspicions are that each sensor has a different sensitivity/noise or that they share the main sim.cfg. Either way, I feel that crew ratings further nerf what has already been nerfed if you catch my drift.

What I am finding is that even though the sensors says max range = 6000 mtres, In the game, even in ideal sea states etc, this simply does not reach those ranges. I therfore am taking the approach that I should make those ranges match by adding or subtracting numbers to the figures and this is working. There is absolutely no chance of getting any super accuracy here though.


I am hoping that after some time, I may start to be able to ween it back down to more historic behaviour unless it completely kills the game (Convoys become unapproachable etc).

I am very interested in how you are appoaching your escape strategy i.e. narrow beams etc. Can you expand some more on your theory for me please.

I would also not mind a little more effective decoy however I am clueless as to how many a sub had at its disposal.

I am equally after both early and late war DDs to be a bit more challenging so long as they do not become too uber. At the moment I am considering individual sensor tweaks but this takes a lot of time so no fast results can be gained. Maybe each DD will behave accuratly anyway due to the sensors sensitivity for that time period. Even though I have all the same crewrating, the early DD,s attack is still not as bad as the late wars DD attack.

It is only through this thread, do I seem to be getting good feedback.

I have just loaded RUB and changed all crew to lvl4 in campaigns and single missions. It takes bloody ages on my PC ??????????.

I need to have air power and the new sub radar mod as well as jungmanns snorkal fix etc etc.

With regards to visual sightings from the DD's, I notice that they can spot anything that pops out of the water as it height setting is 0. I think jungamann changed this to 1 as the RUB says 1.

As I am getting better improvements with the hydrophone which now forces me to be a lot lot lot slower, I think it is unfair should the DD spot my periscope at 3000 mtrs if it is only a small fraction out of the water. I am considering attempting to put a small nerf here. Either by changing min height to a 0.5 rather than 0 or 1. I was also considering just upping the time by a second or two for a slight delay.

Was there any other possible reason why it was upped to 1 in RUB i.e. air etc snorkel?.

What are your experiences? Does the game already model this well?

Anyway this post is too long :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Sorry

Will keep popping in to see how things are panning out for others.

Good luck all

[gouldjg]

Originally Posted by CB..

i can't bring myself to start testing the sensor stuff again untill i've built up some more enthusiasm again--- so i thought the bold thing might be a distraction for a while--

Man I hear you,

I played Texas Holdem with the lads most of the day to get a breather for a while. Lost £40 but it was a good buzz.

I am sure they cheat

Anyway, I introduced them to the internet version. They took ages.

At one point I had to get firm and said

"com on lads, let me check something (this website) I have a life too"

So i click onto subsim and the lads rofl at me.

I felt Sad :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Marhkimov]

Hi Gouldjg,

Just a thought, but IMHO 1.0 meter minimum periscope height is good as is.

Imagine if it is set to 0.5 meters and we are in a storm. It would be nearly impossible to keep the periscope hidden by 0.5 meters. Oh heck, it's already impossible to conceal the periscope by 1 meter.

IMHO, attacking in a storm should be easier than calm water... Not the other way around...

What do you think?

[Ducimus]

I think theres alot of randomization were dealing with:

1. State of the seas.

First and foremost i think this is biting me in the ass. Wave factor and probably noise factor play a major role here, and i think theres a degree of randomization to it. Im slowling whitling down these figures. Right now im trying 0.4 noise factor and 0.20 wave factor.

If anyone wants to experiment and hasnt tried this yet, try zeroing out wave factor. I think what you might find is when you get a certain distance to a DD (say within 2K radius), no amount of creeping or silent running is going to work.. at least thats the conclusion my experiments have lead me to. If anyone can duplicate that, i think its a step forward.



2. Crew rating
Im of the conclusion that theres a randomization percentage assoicated with how well a DD can detect you based on crew rating. The lower the crew the greater the random factor (odds in your favor), the higher the crew, the less random percentage (odds not in your favor). But even with crew rating 4, im certain theres a randomization going on that will vary results. Combine this with the sea state, i think were going to have unsatisfavory results more often then not.


3. Year and equipment
While i havent really looked into it, im fairly certain that not all DDs are equiped the same, and equipment varies by year, and nationaly? Anyone know for sure? If so this will vary results.



Last night i replaced all the crewratings in the U505 mission from 4 to 3, and while i had poor results in detection (i changed the starting position and i think i inadvertantly put myself just behind their passive sonar cone), i had excellent results in the ensuing depth charge attack. Unless theres some other factor in there that overrode the individual crewratings, the results i had from that DC attack was very promising (they sunk me once), and has encouraged me to work further with crewrating 3.

With crewrating 4 im hesitant to open the floodgates to uber passive sonar, but less so with crew rating 3.


I just started a war patrol with Improved convoys, all escorts crew rating in the SCR file have been replaced to 3 (old values ranged from 0 ,1, 2, and 4)

As soon as i latch onto a convoy ill hopefuly see soem results. But whats going to skew them is the damn weather! always 15 winds, and alot of storms. If i could cut that factor down by half id be a happy camper.

[gouldjg]

Sounds like you have already expeienced gameplay of this factor so I take your word for it .

Due to the fact that I tweak more than play, I sometimes get lost on parts :rotfl: :rotfl: .

I find myself getting DC attacked 5 hours a day. Then 3 hours dwelling on possibles, then 2 hours wasting time on immpossibles, you know, the typical life.

Wife hates me (no sex for a week scenario). At one point I was debating just getting her a escort for the night to give me a rest :|\ .

What she does not know,

Next week, I start to attempt at hammering out other niggling bugs in the game i.e. ramming etc. :rotfl: :rotfl:

Divorce comming soon

[Marhkimov]

LOLOLOL gouldjg,


Maybe you should stop running these here rediculous tests and go have some "fun" with your wife...

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Ducimus]

My wife hates this game, she told me so last night. lol

Anyway, again, if someone would be as so kind, experiment with:

Wave factor = 0.0


Noise factor... ehh 1, or 0.5, or whatever. Hell try 1 and 0.5 if you have the time.

What im thinking what you'll find is this:

Game behaves as normal, but the instant you get within a certain radius of a DD (1200 meters give or take a few hundred), you can't hide.

If you can establish a normal pattern.. err.. i dunno some type of consitant distance. Try lowering the noise factor and see if that "can't hide radius grows" in size.


Ultimatly i think were going to end up with some very small faction of a percentage in the sim.cfg

If anyones already done this, what were your results?

Gotta run, late for work.

[gouldjg]

Hi Ducimus

1. State of the seas.

Yep, no doubt about it, the sea and weather are taken into effect. It is good that you are trying by training the cfg to match crew as opposed to me training the sensors to match crew.

We will both get results and understand different ways. I was going to do this at one point but when I looked at equipment, I feel more suited to the trial and error method.

I think both methods will work just as good and bad as each other. There will come a point where you need to look and sensors and I will need to look at cfg for minot changes.

2. Crew rating

Absolutely. Only with one crewrating will anyone get anything near to real results. That is a fact plain and simple. I could be very wrong, maybe someone who has all the formulars and a full maths Degree could do it but not me. I stick with 1 and do the best I can. At the moment I am leaving the wave factor to test in storm conditions. This is where the crux of the problems will become apparrent and more obvious results will appear.

3.Year and equipment

Yep it does vary by year and it seems to mimic British equipment and American as someone said earlier.

Yep your right this will contribute to randomness.

This is why I spend my time in the sensor_dat rather than the cfg though eventually I will have to look at minor changes in the cfg.

Each piece of equipment will have its own sensitivity thus I supect the crew rating will aslo account onto it, the weather etc etc.

There is no way we will all get exact similar results, even if we had the same mission and settings.

You may be 100 mtres north of me, but that will be enough to trigger off certain triggers which will then send you into a different type of game than I have.

Sound riduculous but it is true.

All we can do, is go by our own hunches and report here on results. We train each other.

[gouldjg]

Originally Posted by marhkimov

LOLOLOL gouldjg,


Maybe you should stop running these here rediculous tests and go have some "fun" with your wife...

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I prefer testing SH3 than sex with my wife. Similar results really,

She gives a head slow

I go deep

Launch a dud

Go deeper

Blow her top

Get Depth charged by the emotional chat afterwards.

I am sure many feel the similarities

[CB..]

well i did give in just tried a quick campaign patrol (contradiction in terms )

all i did just out of desperation was to add 10,000 metres to all the passives---left the hydrophone cfg entrys as thus

[Hydrophone]
range factor=1 ;[>=0]
fog factor=0 ;[>=0]
light factor=0 ;[>=0]
waves factor=0.2 ;[>=0]
speed factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
enemy speed=0 ;[>=0]
aspect=0 ;[>=0]
noise factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
sensor height factor=0 ;[>=0]
already tracking modifier=20 ;[detection probability modifier]
decay time=150 ;[>0] already tracking bonus decay, in seconds
uses crew efficiency=true ;[true or false]

why the heck not lol---

i've tried everything else--

this time i used the detection meter--( never used it before)

little green sub and all that--seemed a bit wierd but great for testing

this time i made dang sure i had deleted any copys from the library folder

found a convoy dived at 6000 metres (mild fog conditions- calm seas)
silent running
immeditately got detected --little RED sub---
thought oh eh what's all this then?

UBER DD's in me campaign --!!

so finally some sort of evidence that the sensor edits are sticking (had previuslty tried 40,000 metres on passives to nil effect)

so finger crossed that's the trick---as Red says nowt happens if you don't delete the back up copy TT anayzler makes when you edit the dat--

very strange state of affairs--

but finally some hope---all my crewratings in the Campaign.rnd were set to 2

the little red sub stayed red 100% of the time except for the tinyiest of green flashes as the DD was directly over head--this meter things is very handy!

so i can bring the passive ranges down again and work on making that little green flash into something more prolonged-- via the minimum distance to start with--

i'll leave the weird cfg entrys as they are untill it looks neccessary to change them to something more like the normal entrys--

short of the randomisation blues starting again (which Red says seem to diminish after deleting the "copy of" file) things are looking up--

no luck on the DD launching bolds state of affairs tho as yet--

i have a feeling making the DD's screw excessively noisy might give good results tho--ball park stuuf to deaden their sensors and those of the circling DD's whilst one is over head--(ie dropping DC's --same thing moere or less--any one know if this is do-able--if the bolds can have their noise increased or radius--can the DD screws have a similar edit?)

[gouldjg]

CB

I hope this stays for you, then we can all make huge steps forward. I hated the fact that something may have seemed it was not working for you. I am now expecting some excited posts back as you discover the possibilities and problems :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: . Hope you missis aint expecting any loving tonight:rotfl: :rotfl:



Remeber though, this is now the start of the problem as a whole and we probably all need each other here the most.

In my tests I set speed factor upto 25 because I suspected this is just a shut-off number so i can ensure all DD,s heard me.

It may not be a shut off number or in fact may be affected by other stuf i.e. crew which in turn creates randomness like the rest.

It may not however but we have to think like that.

I am sure there is one huge mathmatical model at work here. We dont have the formula but we will get something good out of it.


Lets us not forget the other stuff we have learned i.e. the possibilities of maybe adding the individual sensors to the cfg etc etc.

Good luck and I luck forward to your findings. Deep down, I think it would be possibly you other guys who will find the best solution. Sometimes I am too flipant in my work.

I can see something, I can test it, But I am damned about the minute details and historical facts. Here I have to rely on the more experienced.


I tell you guys,

I can feel we will start coming on in leaps and bounds now