Realism mod (discussion)

[FPSchazly]

Originally Posted by PL_Harpoon

On another note, I did some testing regarding ship acceleration. And by testing I mean comparing CW to DW. Turns out it take almost twice as much time to reach flank speed in CW, than in DW. (LA class: 1:52' in Cold Waters vs 0:58' in DW). The problem is, it looks like CW doesn't take screw speed into consideration when calculating accelerations, so 0-5kn time is the same with 1/3 power as with full power.
Below is a comparison of various times done with a simple stopwatch:

That is a good point. Are there any real-world submariners out there that can comment on this? It's like driving a car. Cruising on the highway, you're using a certain throttle (making turns for that speed, as it were). If you were to accelerate to that speed using the cruising throttle, it would take forever (infinitely long in a mathematical sense). So, you use more throttle to accelerate to that cruising speed and then reduce throttle to maintain that speed once you attain it. I'm curious as to the distinction for this in naval turns. "Make turns for x knots" means (I would think) turn the propeller at the speed necessary to maintain x knots indicated. Would there be a situation where you apply more throttle to get to speed x more quickly and then reduce throttle?

[Skwabie]

the reduced warhead weight on beta 1.01 is double edged.

it makes tactical game play more interesting.

it makes the player able to survive hits easier.

However. it makes campaign play harder. because player has to travel a lot more back to base for reloads and miss mission time windows.


considering the latter i've reverted to 1.00 weights. plus from the looks of data, the reduced weight is not "universal" i.e. only a few weapons got it. the Mk48 has almost the same warhead as MK37 in beta1.01 due to its warhead weight reduction, but in RL the mk37 is much lighter.

[PL_Harpoon]

Originally Posted by Skwabie

the reduced warhead weight on beta 1.01 is double edged.

it makes tactical game play more interesting.

it makes the player able to survive hits easier.

However. it makes campaign play harder. because player has to travel a lot more back to base for reloads and miss mission time windows.


considering the latter i've reverted to 1.00 weights. plus from the looks of data, the reduced weight is not "universal" i.e. only a few weapons got it. the Mk48 has almost the same warhead as MK37 in beta1.01 due to its warhead weight reduction, but in RL the mk37 is much lighter.

Yeah, Mk37 should have 149kg warhead, not 225, but that's easily fixable. Overall looking at the numbers the new warhead sizes are closer to real ones.

[Skwabie]

Originally Posted by PL_Harpoon

Yeah, Mk37 should have 149kg warhead, not 225, but that's easily fixable. Overall looking at the numbers the new warhead sizes are closer to real ones.

MK48 v1.00 550, b1.01 295
MK37 v1.00 225, b1.01 225

something disconnects here, why MK48 ~halved and MK37 same (along with many others unchanged between 1.00 and 1.01)?

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_PostWWII.php

Mk37 real: 150kg HBX -> 225 kg TNT equivalent (assuming HBX = 1.5 TNT)
Mk48 real: 292.5 kg PBXN-103 -> 544 kg TNT equivalent as noted

Since they posted the warhead weight being TNT weight, the 1.00 numbers should be closer RL values. i think they are changed for more interesting gameplay reasons.
For how many torps it takes to sink a ship, personally i think the 1.00 warheads is spot on. destroyers and attack subs, 1 hit is enough. shoot at the SSG/BNs, or Kirov or Kiev, it takes anywhere from 2-4. big ships are just rarely encountered due to the in-game battles setup more against small ships.
More importantly, the weak warheads makes campaign mode.. will so far a bit ridiculous. It is doable, but a lot harder. like one battle later it's return port to re-arm for 3 dayz. - Maybe also double the loadout capacity of player subs, then halve the reload in-port time of weapons. Anyway thankfully this is all moddable lol.

[Haukka81]

I hope that they boos weapons back, double loadout would be just stupid move to too arcade style game.

I hope that this is not sing of end, i mean that many games are ruined when devs lose their orginal "red line" or goal.


-

[PL_Harpoon]

Originally Posted by Skwabie

MK48 v1.00 550, b1.01 295
MK37 v1.00 225, b1.01 225

something disconnects here, why MK48 ~halved and MK37 same (along with many others unchanged between 1.00 and 1.01)?

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_PostWWII.php

Mk37 real: 150kg HBX -> 225 kg TNT equivalent (assuming HBX = 1.5 TNT)
Mk48 real: 292.5 kg PBXN-103 -> 544 kg TNT equivalent as noted

Since they posted the warhead weight being TNT weight, the 1.00 numbers should be closer RL values. i think they are changed for more interesting gameplay reasons.
For how many torps it takes to sink a ship, personally i think the 1.00 warheads is spot on. destroyers and attack subs, 1 hit is enough. shoot at the SSG/BNs, or Kirov or Kiev, it takes anywhere from 2-4. big ships are just rarely encountered due to the in-game battles setup more against small ships.
More importantly, the weak warheads makes campaign mode.. will so far a bit ridiculous. It is doable, but a lot harder. like one battle later it's return port to re-arm for 3 dayz. - Maybe also double the loadout capacity of player subs, then halve the reload in-port time of weapons. Anyway thankfully this is all moddable lol.

Well, looks like you're right. Too bad there's no info about what type of explosive the Soviets used in their torpedoes. Cause I doubt it was TNT.

In that case we'd have to set US warheads to their 1.0 values and use some sort of multiplier for Soviet ones. Unless someone will provide info on the type of explosive used in their torps.

[Julhelm]

I think they got changed back because people complained about one hit killing cruisers with Mk48s = too easy.

[PL_Harpoon]

Perhaps make surface ships more durable in general? Or add a variable, like "hull strength" to ships (from what I tested it seems to be based on ship displacement), so that it's possible to tweak it for individual vessels.

I'm not an expert here but I do think that surface ships should be harder to kill that subs.

[ScreamingElectron]

Originally Posted by FPSchazly

That is a good point. Are there any real-world submariners out there that can comment on this? It's like driving a car. Cruising on the highway, you're using a certain throttle (making turns for that speed, as it were). If you were to accelerate to that speed using the cruising throttle, it would take forever (infinitely long in a mathematical sense). So, you use more throttle to accelerate to that cruising speed and then reduce throttle to maintain that speed once you attain it. I'm curious as to the distinction for this in naval turns. "Make turns for x knots" means (I would think) turn the propeller at the speed necessary to maintain x knots indicated. Would there be a situation where you apply more throttle to get to speed x more quickly and then reduce throttle?

Also, consider that cavitation will reduce the output thrust of any propeller. A spin speed adequate to run 25kts on the surface will (if cavitating) generate a higher speed at non-cavitation depth. There are tons of variables and factors to consider here. Being a Unity developer myself, and having looked at the source for this game, I can assure you that the poor programmer(s) is already dealing with a mind-crushing amount of variables and functions.
Give them some more time to fine tune.