TMO vs RFB

[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.

Originally Posted by IronPerch

I have been runnign NSM with RFB 1.5 without any problems so far

last i heard about NSM was that it was strickly a 1.4 mod but when it was tried it did actually work for 1.5 but not for everyone so i think certain combinations of mods cause issues with this or that so if you notice something is not quite right try removing NSM to see if it might be dissagreeing with some of your mods.

i would imagine, and i hope that they put out a new revamped NSM made for 1.5 after they finish with the big mod

[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.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by WEBSTER

last i heard about NSM was that it was strickly a 1.4 mod but when it was tried it did actually work for 1.5 but not for everyone so i think certain combinations of mods cause issues with this or that so if you notice something is not quite right try removing NSM to see if it might be dissagreeing with some of your mods.

i would imagine, and i hope that they put out a new revamped NSM made for 1.5 after they finish with the big mod

Well, that's the advantage of your small mod strategy. With a large mod, it's NEVER finished! You can say, "I want torpedoes to explode a little more powerfully," do it and be done. That's a big advantage.

The problem with NSM is that each ship has its own characteristics in the mod. Since the publication of NSM, many new ship types have been introduced, none of which is covered by RFB or TMO. Then, the settings in NSM override some desirable characteristics of both mods, resulting in some pretty comical sinking behavior sometimes. Like you said, it's nothing deal-breaking. But it is enough that the RFB team is working on a replacement to be part of RFB and most probably released independently as well.

It is a monumental undertaking because each ship must be individually tuned in its own file within the mod. Each ship has to be tweaked, tested, tweaked.... repeat as necessary. Each test means restarting the game. So the cycle is more like tweak, restart, (Q@#$@#!$!!!), test, (@!#$$~!!!), tweak, restart, cuss some more, repeat until exhausted.

It will be worth the wait.

PS-- Man, Fay (the Joker) is really playing with my Internet tonight.

[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.

[AVGWarhawk]

As far as Peto's work on DD, you really never know what your gonna get. You might get a warship that turns tail and runs. Or, you might get the Grim Reaper at the helm so kiss you and your crew goodbye. I tested Peto's mod one time and came upon two subchasers escorting a troop transport. These two were The Brothers Grim. Within about 10 minutes I was done. Ash can down my conning tower hatch..... So, the 80% chance of 'I'm going to make it out of this' is GREATLY reduces with Peto's mod. The best part of it all like I said, you never know what you are going to get so it is up to you if you want to risk your crews necks.

[DrBeast]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

The problem with NSM is that each ship has its own characteristics in the mod. Since the publication of NSM, many new ship types have been introduced, none of which is covered by RFB or TMO. Then, the settings in NSM override some desirable characteristics of both mods, resulting in some pretty comical sinking behavior sometimes. Like you said, it's nothing deal-breaking. But it is enough that the RFB team is working on a replacement to be part of RFB and most probably released independently as well.

It is a monumental undertaking because each ship must be individually tuned in its own file within the mod. Each ship has to be tweaked, tested, tweaked.... repeat as necessary. Each test means restarting the game. So the cycle is more like tweak, restart, (Q@#$@#!$!!!), test, (@!#$$~!!!), tweak, restart, cuss some more, repeat until exhausted.

It will be worth the wait.

Not to mention the various ship types introduced by mods such as RSRDC and/or OM. All in all, a royal headache!
With regards to the two mods, what it really boils down to is: it's a matter of personal preference. Try them both, keep the one you like and, if you're feeling adventurous enough, READ READ READ READ this forum to understand how things work and maybe do a mix and match? It's not really that hard, once you get the hang of it

[Observer]

Just to add some additional info based on parts I've had direct involvement with...

The fleet boat damage model is totally different. Get hit by large caliber naval gunfire, you die. Quickly. Get hit by small caliber gunfire your crew dies. Quickly. Get hit by a close DC and you're going to have various different systems damaged. If you get damaged badly enough, you may even have to combat flooding. This in turn will make it very difficult to maintain depth. The days of "hull damage" when below crush depth are gone. Go below crush depth you die. Quickly. If you have a close aboard DC hit that ruptures the pressure hull (formerly the "bulkhead"), you die. Quickly.

Oh and gone are the days of badly damaged equipment still being 100% functional. As equipment receives damage the performance will degrade (for many systems), and if the equipment is damaged enough, it will stop working altogether. Repair times will take much longer than stock SH4, and only light to medium damage can be repaired. Most components when heavily damaged cannot be repaired until the player returns to port.

The players will have to adjust tactics and realize the submarine is not a Tiger Tank(TM) impervious to damage. You don't get in a gunfight with surface combatants or you will die. In fact, you don't really want to risk your boat to armed merchants without the proper tactics. The submarine has distinct strengths and weaknesses that have to be employed properly by the player in order to be most effective.

On the ship damage model, it's not quite as bad as RR would have you believe, but it is time consuming because every ship is unique and requires individual testing. The good news is that I have a good zone template and a good feel for what does and does not work. The other good news is that these ships seem to be a little easier to work with than their SH3 counterparts.

[Zero Niner]

Excellent post, RR. Your treatise should be cut and stickied for anyone to refer to, when they want to get a gist of what the 2 mods are all about.

[Peto]

From my RFB testing perspective:

Originally Posted by swdw

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.

DC's are nasty if close. Don't get hit.

Originally Posted by swdw

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).

Good point on the 25%--you are correct. And your historical points are spot on.

Evasion is much different than stock. One of the main things I learned in testing the sonar changes is patience. You can slink away for 10, 15 minutes thinking you've broken contact only to have them pick you up on active again. It gives me the "feeling" of being hunted rather than simply hounded. 2-3 hour evasions are not unusual. My 13 hour ordeal was the worst (most challenging) test case so far--and then I did manage to escape with about 1/4 of my battery left. Second worst was merely 7 hours. (these are exceptions to many tests though).

Originally Posted by swdw

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.

Originally Posted by swdw

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

Again--from a testing perspective: Yes. ALL incoming gunfire can and will hurt you badly. But I've found that I can still do night surface attacks in almost all conditions--IF I'm careful!!! Taking the time to set it up and timing the actual attack is key. And when I do get spotted, it's All Ahead Flank, Crash Dive and Zig-Zag hoping they don't land a killing round. I usually make it under ok so I can then enjoy a nice depth charging .