patch 1.4 bugs/issues to be fixed ONLY list

[maerean_m]

The scrolling has been optimized for all lists (including this one with torpedoes and with a greater effect for the patrol radio messages).

Also, for the add-on, the philosophy of the torpedo list has been changed.

[Capt. Shark Bait]

Originally Posted by maerean_m

The scrolling has been optimized for all lists (including this one with torpedoes and with a greater effect for the patrol radio messages).

Also, for the add-on, the philosophy of the torpedo list has been changed.

i take it that means that there's no more searching for the torpedoes you want, which are near the bottom by the time the forward tubes and reloads are stowed

[hyperion2206]

Originally Posted by LukeFF

Not to mention, our boats are rearmed and refueled instantly, instead of taking a couple of hours, as was the historical reality.

I totally agree with you on this point, would be cool if that would be changed.
One thing I'd love to see implemented: You don't really know if you sunk a ship unless you see it sink (through periscope or binoculars). In reality skippers often didn't know if they hit a ship and if they did they often didn't know whether they damaged or sunk it.
Another thing: you should get credit for damaged ships, like getting half the renown and half the tonnage of the ship you damaged.

[tater]

Originally Posted by maerean_m

The scrolling has been optimized for all lists (including this one with torpedoes and with a greater effect for the patrol radio messages).

Also, for the add-on, the philosophy of the torpedo list has been changed.

The bigger issue (IMO) is that every port has the same number of all torpedo types. Early in the war, there was a shortage of torpedoes, it would be nice to be able to represent this somehow in the campaign...

[mcarlsonus]

...how about an option for a tow should one run out of diesel fuel within sight of Midway? I've had to turn down realism due to fuel problems. Some patrol zones are so far, I'm half empty by the time I get there - and this is despite "porpoising" and running at absolute 1/3 speed on the surface!

[tater]

Running slower than optimal speed uses too much fuel.

10-11 knots is ideal. Assuming you tank up at Midway outbound, you should egt to Japan with 3/4 of a tank left.

Regardless, I think there should be a sort of "abandon ship" or "Assistance requested" button. Might be as simple as this, you send a status report, and if your fuel state is zero, or if your engines are destroyed, or if you have no rudder, it rolls a die and tells you about being picked up by a friendly sub, or there is nothing they can do (based on your position).

tater

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by hyperion2206

One thing I'd love to see implemented: You don't really know if you sunk a ship unless you see it sink (through periscope or binoculars). In reality skippers often didn't know if they hit a ship and if they did they often didn't know whether they damaged or sunk it.

Good point. Sometimes a ship would sink much later. More often than not, though, a captain would 'see' a ship sink, only to find out later that he was mistaken. That could be frustrating in a game. It might be neat to have the option of realistic scoring: you sink a ship, you get credit for it, and then when the war is over some of those are removed because they didn't really sink at all. Conversely, you watch a ship escape, only to find out later that it did sink and you get the credit.

Another thing: you should get credit for damaged ships, like getting half the renown and half the tonnage of the ship you damaged.

I completely disagree on this point. Why would anyone award you half tonnage for a ship that made it safely to port? Renown? You let it get away; maybe they should take away renown for not finishing the job.

I don't know where to begin. All I know is that the game crashes randomly and it prevents me from playing the game without cheating. Maybe I need a 50 core processor to help stablize the game??

[maerean_m]

Originally Posted by tater

The bigger issue (IMO) is that every port has the same number of all torpedo types. Early in the war, there was a shortage of torpedoes, it would be nice to be able to represent this somehow in the campaign...

The shortage is modeled by the renown cost (that drops as time goes by).

PS: the thing you mentioned will not be an issue in the add-on.

Have you noticed that there aren't two people whose "bigger issue" match?

[tater]

Sailor Steve, in RL credit was given for damage.

maerean_m... LOL. True.

I know renown cost can sort of simulate shortages, but it's backwards sort of. Late in the war they had loads of fish. The real shortage was at the BEGINNING of the war.

Early on, many boats were sent on special missions or mining missions simply because they didn't have the torpedoes to send them on a war p[atrol. All the "commando" and supply missions in real life would have involved the sub getting rid of every single fish except those in the tubes, BTW.

The only simulation possible with renown is to up the cost of the mk14 and mk10 torpedoes. The problem is the timing. I could make a patrol objective for a date range that only allows special missions, then try to get the torpedo cost such that the skipper simply cannot afford more than a handful of fish... gets complicated.

I can make my tube-launched mone free, too.

BTW, is it possible to reduce the size of a torpedo in C:\Program Files\Ubisoft\Silent Hunter Wolves of the Pacific\Data\UPCData\UPCUnitsData\Ammunition.upc such that more can be stored aboard the sub? I'd like to make a mine with considerably larger storage, like 2-3 mines per fish normally stored.

[hyperion2206]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Good point. Sometimes a ship would sink much later. More often than not, though, a captain would 'see' a ship sink, only to find out later that he was mistaken. That could be frustrating in a game. It might be neat to have the option of realistic scoring: you sink a ship, you get credit for it, and then when the war is over some of those are removed because they didn't really sink at all. Conversely, you watch a ship escape, only to find out later that it did sink and you get the credit.

I completely disagree on this point. Why would anyone award you half tonnage for a ship that made it safely to port? Renown? You let it get away; maybe they should take away renown for not finishing the job.

Now I have to disagree with you, Sailor Steve. In RL boats were credited for damaging ships and they were credited for the whole tonnage. It makes sense IMHO: By damaging a ship, especially a man-of-war, you hampered the enemies ability to to strike you. The enemy needs more time, men and resources to repair that ship that could have been used to build new ships.
But I'm glad that you agrred with me on my first point and you made some pretty good "amendments".

[tater]

I'd like to see the "instant success" go away. Ie: no ship sunk information put in the log automatically.

Too bad no games have a realistic kill accounting system. Meaning one that isn't 100% accurate, and one that has real rules for the kill to count.

That'd be cool.

tater

[Reaves]

Originally Posted by tater

I'd like to see the "instant success" go away. Ie: no ship sunk information put in the log automatically.

Too bad no games have a realistic kill accounting system. Meaning one that isn't 100% accurate, and one that has real rules for the kill to count.

That'd be cool.

tater

Can you imagine how many people would complain when their kills aren't recorded though?

[tater]

Same folks who'd complain when they sink fewer than 4 CVs per patrol, I'd imagine

tater

[Reaves]

I'd settle for 2 personally. :p



Nah, keep em rare and you keep them special. When I come accross a CV or BB I like getting excited about it.