Are Number of Warships Realistic in Stock Game?

[Dread Knot]

Originally Posted by mdewals

wouldn't it be nearly impossible to have a realistic number of ships unless you play an historically correct campaign?

if you, the player sink 1 ship more or 1 ship less, wouldn't that affect the war in some way?

For example, what would happen to Japan if you sink 10 ships more in a single month compared to what really got sunk? Would it make the home front work harder on new ships or would it destroy the morale?

It probably wouldn't destroy home front morale as most Japanese weren't kept informed on how badly the Japanese merchant marine was being devastated. Frankly, most average Japanese didn't find out how poorly the war had been going until it was over.

It did force the Japanese to eventually keep the fleet in the south (Borneo) where the oil was as enough fuel couldn't be shipped to Japan to keep both the fleet and industry going.

Ultimately, it took the combination of the destruction of the entire Japanese merchant marine, the firebombing and atomic bombing of Japan and the Russian invasion of Manchuria to get Japanese homefront morale even close to a breaking point.

[tater]

Also, as it was we sank virtually everything. Nothing a player could do would have a terribly macroscopic effect on the war except perhaps the sinking of certain critical warships very early in the conflict. Locally they'd certainly send ASW assets to areas they had spotted subs (later in the war, particularly, read Thunder Below for good examples).

Regardless, the devs clearly thought about this, but it never got turned on. There are names for ships in class that are not used by the engine at all. Sinking warships, at the very least should result in 1 fewer of that type. Ideally the engine would then have used that to possibly alter random occurrences of that ship type. Ie: 2xYamato class. On a campaign pull for a random BB (or superBB), if a group has chances for 2, there should never be more than one if one has already been sunk. But it doesn't work that way, sadly.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by tater

Also, as it was we sank virtually everything. Nothing a player could do would have a terribly macroscopic effect on the war except perhaps the sinking of certain critical warships very early in the conflict. Locally they'd certainly send ASW assets to areas they had spotted subs (later in the war, particularly, read Thunder Below for good examples).

Regardless, the devs clearly thought about this, but it never got turned on. There are names for ships in class that are not used by the engine at all. Sinking warships, at the very least should result in 1 fewer of that type. Ideally the engine would then have used that to possibly alter random occurrences of that ship type. Ie: 2xYamato class. On a campaign pull for a random BB (or superBB), if a group has chances for 2, there should never be more than one if one has already been sunk. But it doesn't work that way, sadly.

I think they just settled for a balance. Even with harder AI settings it's still rather easy to wipe out a TF with one sub. For instance, I can take out five carriers in one patrol early war, next patrol do basically the same. The issue is a player could have great effect on the war, sinking numerous capital ships the first year. The way the game is, one sub could basically win the war in one year. Realistically if I took out 8 capital ships in a few patrols, it should effect the overall plans and campaigns of the enemy. I don't see that the AI could ever generate properly based on what a human may do against it.

Still, I think we can make a better campaign mod. Most mods lack the proper ASW response. I corrected this by adding more sub killer groups and many roaming assets around ports and shipping lanes and tweaking the contact time and range. In places like Formosa, I can hardly escape after an attack, as planes and escorts come a looking and hunt for several hours. One aspect of Travs mod I liked was certain planes would shadow your sub from long range, not attacking, but calling in assets as long as you remain on the surface.

[Dread Knot]

Originally Posted by Armistead

I think they just settled for a balance. Even with harder AI settings it's still rather easy to wipe out a TF with one sub. For instance, I can take out five carriers in one patrol early war, next patrol do basically the same. The issue is a player could have great effect on the war, sinking numerous capital ships the first year. The way the game is, one sub could basically win the war in one year. Realistically if I took out 8 capital ships in a few patrols, it should effect the overall plans and campaigns of the enemy. I don't see that the AI could ever generate properly based on what a human may do against it.

Still, I think we can make a better campaign mod. Most mods lack the proper ASW response. I corrected this by adding more sub killer groups and many roaming assets around ports and shipping lanes and tweaking the contact time and range. In places like Formosa, I can hardly escape after an attack, as planes and escorts come a looking and hunt for several hours. One aspect of Travs mod I liked was certain planes would shadow your sub from long range, not attacking, but calling in assets as long as you remain on the surface.

To me this is indicative of another problem with SH4. You simply run into major units of the Japanese Navy too often. The vast majority of US skippers never saw a Japanese carrier through their periscope. However, with historical foreknowledge of where they will be, or because the system spawns them too often it's fairly easy to do in the game.

[tater]

A reason that it is so very easy to sink more than we should is also a failure of the game engine.

Zig-zagging (real ZZing, not the pathetic, reactionary constant-helming we see) was SOP, for example. This would make it harder to shoot. I tend to buy the TMO notion that it's worth making the IJN ASW better than it historically was in order to drive player behavior (fear of death, really) to be more cautious and thoughtful.

There are some other possible ideas, too, but not in the SH4 engine.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by tater

A reason that it is so very easy to sink more than we should is also a failure of the game engine.

Zig-zagging (real ZZing, not the pathetic, reactionary constant-helming we see) was SOP, for example. This would make it harder to shoot. I tend to buy the TMO notion that it's worth making the IJN ASW better than it historically was in order to drive player behavior (fear of death, really) to be more cautious and thoughtful.

There are some other possible ideas, too, but not in the SH4 engine.

I think you hit the point on the head. I like TMO's more zig pattern, but the evasion helming is pointless, not only that the group ususally slows down, making it more pointless.

What is strange is often groups will break up, go in different directions, different speeds, then regroup later, much more realistic. I wish I knew what caused this behavior, but assume it's coded, along with the silly helming.

It seemed to me changing the merchants crew ratings to elite made them respond much better and break from the group, but I would have to test it more. I think I now have about every ship in RSRD set to elite for more realism.

I don't play much anymore, but they're still several things that could be done to make the game more realistic

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Dread Knot

To me this is indicative of another problem with SH4. You simply run into major units of the Japanese Navy too often. The vast majority of US skippers never saw a Japanese carrier through their periscope. However, with historical foreknowledge of where they will be, or because the system spawns them too often it's fairly easy to do in the game.

Yep, stock spawns too much and with RSRD it's easy to figure out where they will be. Why I kept hoping tater was going to write a new campaign.. This is one issue that could be corrected, just takes so much time no one wants to do it, including myself.

[tater]

I mean real ZZ patterns, too, not /\/\/\/\/\/\.

[Armistead]

Yea, I know what you mean. I wish there was a way to increase the helming to at least 1 nm, but I assume it's coded.

[TorpX]

There are a lot of good ideas here. It's too bad we can't re-engineer the game.

Something else that a thinking, living enemy would do, is to route their shipping around the danger. They may not be able to sink your sub, but once located, they could steer their merchants away from your position.

[Nicolas]

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=162080

#x Class, Type, Group, Count, AppearanceDate, DisappearanceDate

Group:
1=Battleships
2=Carriers
3=HeavyCruisers
4=LightCruisers


#1 BBYamato, 20, 1, 2, 19411216, 19451231
#2 BBKongo, 11, 1, 4, 19140101, 19451231
#3 BBFuso, 11, 1, 2, 19131120, 19450101
#4 BBIseConv, 11, 1, 1, 19430223, 19451231
#5 BBIse, 11, 1, 1, 19130101, 19430701


#6 CVEAkitsu, 8, 2, 2, 19380101, 19450101
#7 CVEShoho, 8, 2, 2, 19380101, 19441025
#8 CVETaiyo, 8, 2, 3, 19410915, 19450916
#9 CVHiryu, 9, 2, 2, 19390705, 19450809
#10 CVHiyo, 9, 2, 2, 19420801, 19450809
#11 CVSChitose, 8, 2, 3, 19380101, 19450101
#12 CVShinano, 9, 2, 1, 19441101, 19441201
#13 CVShokaku, 9, 2, 2, 19410808, 19461231
#14 CVSoryu, 9, 2, 1, 19390705, 19451231
#15 CVTaiho, 9, 2, 1, 19440327, 19440719
#16 RCVUnryu, 9, 2, 3, 19440608, 19450809

#17 CAFurutaka, 7, 3, 4, 19260331, 19451011
#18 CAMaya, 7, 3, 4, 19300501, 19451201
#19 CAMogami2, 7, 3, 2, 19430430, 19441025
#20 CAMogami, 7, 3, 3, 19350101, 19441125
#21 CATakao, 7, 3, 4, 19300501, 19451201
#22 CATone, 7, 3, 2, 19380101, 19450728

#23 CLAgano, 6, 4, 4, 19421120, 19460702
#24 CLKatori, 6, 4, 3, 19200831, 19460810
#25 CLKuma, 6, 4, 5, 19200831, 19460810
#26 CLNaka, 6, 4, 4, 19240529, 19460810
#27 CLTenryu, 6, 4, 2, 19200831, 19441101
#28 CLYubari, 6, 4, 1, 19410615, 196901018

[msumpsi]

Originally Posted by tater

Not even close to realistic. The stock game has late war DDs at the start of the war, and in a single 1942 time frame there are vastly more DDs at sea that japan had during the entire war (including kaibokan) combined.

The stock campaign is worthless.

Yes, i agree. Not worth playing without RSRD.