Reduced Tonnage RUB/SH 3 Commander

[panthercules]

Originally Posted by Observer

RUb does not provide random merchant tonnage. This is only provided using SH3 Commander. If you did not use Commander, then your number reflect stock SH3 tonnage values.

The first career looks about right. The second seems high compared to what I posted above. My guess is you sank mostly C2s during that career.

Yeah - either C2s or C3s mostly - with my Type IIA in my second career, I was pretty particular about target selection 'cause I knew I was only going to get a few shots each patrol, whereas with my Type VIIB in my first career I wouldn't hesitate to go after the smaller ships too and could even deck gun a few of those on the way home whereas I didn't have that option with my Type IIA.

I tried SH3 Commander for the first time very briefly a couple of days ago, but for some reason I started getting CTDs again with it, so I stripped everything off and started over again with just RUB1.44. (Something about my machine seems to have problems with some of this stuff and not others - I had a devil of a time with CTDs with RUB 1.41 or 1.42, but not versions before or after, and then again with SH3 Commander for some reason, but not RUB1.44) I'm sorry to hear that the merchant tonnage thing is in there rather than RUB, 'cause it did seem like a pretty cool addition. Is that particular feature maybe available as a standalone mod that I could load in on top of RUB 1.44?

[Beery]

Originally Posted by Observer

Further, the best performing aces should be, from a statistical standpoint, rare. These aces are at the extreme of the bell curve (you could argue that the 50k aces are near the extreme as well) with the majority of the Uboat Captain's never performing anywhere near this level...

The problem is that while that's true in real life, it's certainly not true in the game. We often get large tonnage scores. It is almost impossible in this game to simulate the low to middle areas of the bell curve. This is not a simple U-boat simulation - if it was we'd generally get very low tonnage scores and many patrols with no successes. This is a U-boat ace simulation.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Beery

This is a U-boat ace simulation.

There's truth to that. I think part of it is the extreme aggressiveness of players. I never thought of myself as a reckless player, but keeping up with my WaW career, where I keep the immersion high with a variety of things (including keeping detailed logs), I keep noticing how from a real-world standpoint - I think a captain of my character could only be called two things: both incredibly lucky and near-suicidally aggressive.

Part of it is that we're just playing a game, I think, and try as we might, even with a lot of the things modded down and even using only realistic tactics - we're really playing with way more confidence and risk than most real skippers would have been capable of :hmm:

I still haven't had a career that lasted longer than a half-dozen patrols and didn't produce an ace captain.

[joea]

Don't forget, all of us have "died" many times in this game and others (like flight sims) but we don't come back as rookies. We still benefit from our mistakes as it were. Beery said it right, this and a lot of games are "ace" simulations, though I did have one carreer with very low tonnage.

[rudewarrior]

I've noticed in this thread there are some interesting discussions on uboat sinking statistics, dud torpedos, training, etc. I have also read several threads on the "torpedo crisis."

One comment I have is that, although we don't die and are able to restart, I also know that the sub commanders had training before they put to sea.

Second, how exactly is a successful sub commander defined? With all the dud torpedos, we are unable to truly assess whether or not commanders were successful at hitting ships with torps, be they dud or not. Also, sometimes I kind of think about my tonnage per torpedo fired ratio, and wonder what it would be for real commmanders. If that could be determined, maybe we could analyze "success" from a different viewpoint.

Not trying to hijack this thread, just trying to stimulate some thought.

Comments?

[Observer]

Originally Posted by Beery

The problem is that while that's true in real life, it's certainly not true in the game. We often get large tonnage scores. It is almost impossible in this game to simulate the low to middle areas of the bell curve. This is not a simple U-boat simulation - if it was we'd generally get very low tonnage scores and many patrols with no successes. This is a U-boat ace simulation.

That's an interesting point. Based on a variety of factors others have mentioned previously, I must agree to a point, though it is not impossible to get a very low tonnage career, it is just more unlikely. In my mind the AI and living conditions are two of the most important considerations and they are impossible to model. Even I know the AI will depart 15 minutes after they've been unable to detect my boat. That leads to some very bad behaviors, but also greatly reduces some of the uncertainty. That would actually be a nice parameter to randomize.:hmm:

Even so, when comparing aces with more than 50k tonnage sunk in a career to the tonnage averages for a "typical convoy" in SH3, it's pretty darn close. Comparison of some average SH3 careers are also pretty close (at least mine and CCIPs) to that of the aces.

The SH3 torpedoes are much more reliable than German torpedoes historically. We certainly don't have to contend with depth keeping issues for instance. When using manual targeting the average number of torpedoes to sink a ship seems about right (no statistics to back this up though...that's a research project by itself). This gets skewed when using the weapons officer for solutions, so I don't know that number of torpedoes per kill is really a better metric.

[Beery]

Originally Posted by Observer

...Even I know the AI will depart 15 minutes after they've been unable to detect my boat. That leads to some very bad behaviors, but also greatly reduces some of the uncertainty. That would actually be a nice parameter to randomize.:hmm:

Great idea! We could easily do this. What parameters do you envision? Currently, RUb has a 40 minute departure delay, but we could easily randomize it so that it went from 15 to 45. After ships lost contact, what would be a reasonable time delay for them to give up the search? We have to be careful not to have too big a delay because the escorts get too far from the convoy and they don't catch up, which leaves the convoy more open to attack.

Even so, when comparing aces with more than 50k tonnage sunk in a career to the tonnage averages for a "typical convoy" in SH3, it's pretty darn close. Comparison of some average SH3 careers are also pretty close (at least mine and CCIPs) to that of the aces...

I've come around to your position on this. Possibly my test tonnage scores are because I'm being too conservative.

[Observer]

Originally Posted by Beery

Great idea! We could easily do this. What parameters do you envision? Currently, RUb has a 40 minute departure delay, but we could easily randomize it so that it went from 15 to 45. After ships lost contact, what would be a reasonable time delay for them to give up the search? We have to be careful not to have too big a delay because the escorts get too far from the convoy and they don't catch up, which leaves the convoy more open to attack.

Is it really 40 min in RUb? That explains quite a few things...

I'd guess the lost contact time parameter should vary from about 30 min as a minimum to 75 or 90 min as a max. Just to mix things up, this could be varied every time the player starts SH3 using SH3 Commander by maybe using 6 different variants in the random folders for SH3 Commander (10 minute increments).

I've come around to your position on this. Possibly my test tonnage scores are because I'm being too conservative.

Maybe we're too aggressive. I don't know.:hmm:

My big gripe is with crew experience. My last patrol sank 28k total tonnage and my crew got 6 experience points. In order for the "retirement" feature to work well in SH3 Commander I'd think the experience needs to be double to triple that or the officers will never get a promotion during a realistic career. The other option is to lower the promotion criteria (maybe 450 instead of 500 for example). I thought I'd found the parameter but it didn't seem to work the way I had expected.

As an alternative I think it might be nice to be able to adjust experience scores, just for the officers really, using the crew manager in SH3 Commander. It's possible to edit the files manually, but it's not easy.

[Beery]

Originally Posted by Observer

Is it really 40 min in RUb? That explains quite a few things...

I'd guess the lost contact time parameter should vary from about 30 min as a minimum to 75 or 90 min as a max...

The only problem with that is that after 40 or so minutes the escorts lose track of the convoy and never catch up. This allows you to do an 'end-around' and go to town on an unescorted convoy. This is even worse than the original problem of 15 minutes not being enough to get you far enough from the convoy.

Maybe we're too aggressive. I don't know.:hmm:

Well, in the upcoming SH3 Commander all aspects of the randomization will be fully customizable. So we'll be able to adjust the file to be very conservative or very aggressive.

My big gripe is with crew experience. My last patrol sank 28k total tonnage and my crew got 6 experience points. In order for the "retirement" feature to work well in SH3 Commander I'd think the experience needs to be double to triple that or the officers will never get a promotion during a realistic career. The other option is to lower the promotion criteria (maybe 450 instead of 500 for example). I thought I'd found the parameter but it didn't seem to work the way I had expected.

In reality, promotions came very slowly indeed. Probably the promotion system we use is much more liberal than real life.

As an alternative I think it might be nice to be able to adjust experience scores, just for the officers really, using the crew manager in SH3 Commander. It's possible to edit the files manually, but it's not easy.

Options are always a good thing.

[Observer]

I've no knowledge on the rate of promotions in the KM. My thought process is that if crew members are transferred off of the boat, they should be replaced by one of equivalent rank (or at least close in rank). That's fine. In fact that's great! If you have to spend renown to "buy" a replacement of similar rank then it's a problem.

It's interesting the escorts lose the convoy. I suppose the upper limit should be set at the max the escorts can stay with the convoy. I thought there was a 20 km limit to calls for help from the merchants. One other thing I've noticed is that only one or two (haven't seen three yet) will stay behind at the last known position. For many of the IC convoys that leaves one to three escorts with the convoy. Maybe with this in mind a longer time isn't a bad thing, just as long as the warships are within the 20 km radius.

Thoughts?

[panthercules]

Originally Posted by Observer

I've no knowledge on the rate of promotions in the KM. My thought process is that if crew members are transferred off of the boat, they should be replaced by one of equivalent rank (or at least close in rank).

I don't have any data on this either, but I would have thought that it would be more likely that if one of your crew was transferred off your boat you would get a relatively green replacement - after all, what would really be the point to a "lateral" move or exchange of crewmen in terms of overall U-bootwaffe personnel policy/efficiency?

What would be really cool though is if for every relatively senior crewman you had taken away from you in a transfer you would be able to promote one of your other crewmen to step up and take his place - just think how proud Dieter would be at becoming a brevet Oberstabsbootsmann :P

[CCIP]

I actually run my own system of transfers, where every patrol I transfer an average 10% (sometimes more, sometimes less) of crewmen who have served for 5 or more patrols, and I generally replace them with junior crew of the same class. For officers, I tend to be a bit more sophisticated and consider things like their rank and function more than anything else.

From what I've read, this is generally applicable for real u-boats. For instance in my WaW career, in 8 patrols I've transferred off a total of 15 crew, 4 of which were officers. (My current crew is 50).

I also play a little game on patrol where I 'rate' my crew's performance and give them 'points' for any distinctions or write little stories about their screwups. Which I also use in deciding transfers. Silly roleplay, I know, but sure adds to immersion

[Beery]

Originally Posted by Observer

I've no knowledge on the rate of promotions in the KM. My thought process is that if crew members are transferred off of the boat, they should be replaced by one of equivalent rank (or at least close in rank). That's fine. In fact that's great! If you have to spend renown to "buy" a replacement of similar rank then it's a problem.

I may be mistaken in this, and Jaesen can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure there's no way to get equivalent replacements without spending renown to do it. I think the promotion issue will be optional - you're never going to be forced to lose crewmen, but if you choose to promote someone, you will have to accept a loss in renown if you replace the crewman with a man of equal rank. The only way to get free crewmen is to get someone who costs nothing, and those guys have no experience. A big part of the problem with the replacement system as it is, is that there is too little crew turnover, so replacements are virtually never used. The new crew turnover systems Jaesen is implementing right now (promotions, transfers and casualties) will make replacements become a much more active part of the game. The downside of that is that it will use up renown if you choose to implement the feature.

It's interesting the escorts lose the convoy. I suppose the upper limit should be set at the max the escorts can stay with the convoy. I thought there was a 20 km limit to calls for help from the merchants. One other thing I've noticed is that only one or two (haven't seen three yet) will stay behind at the last known position. For many of the IC convoys that leaves one to three escorts with the convoy. Maybe with this in mind a longer time isn't a bad thing, just as long as the warships are within the 20 km radius.

Basically the problem is that ships guarding a convoy have standing orders to cruise at the convoy's speed, so if they get stuck for 45 minutes on a search routine, after it's over they steam along oblivious to the convoy, constantly lagging behind it. Unless they actually spot you with their sonar, radar, hydrophone or AI eyeball, they won't do anything even if they seem to be able to clearly see ships being hit by torpedoes. After 45 minutes they are only perhaps 8km away, but even at 8km, the chances of spotting a periscope is very small, and sonar and hydrophones have no chance at that range. The only chance an escort has of spotting the periscope is by radar, and I'm not sure how far out even that goes, or how reliable it is.

[Observer]

Originally Posted by Beery

I may be mistaken in this, and Jaesen can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure there's no way to get equivalent replacements without spending renown to do it. I think the promotion issue will be optional - you're never going to be forced to lose crewmen, but if you choose to promote someone, you will have to accept a loss in renown if you replace the crewman with a man of equal rank. The only way to get free crewmen is to get someone who costs nothing, and those guys have no experience. A big part of the problem with the replacement system as it is, is that there is too little crew turnover, so replacements are virtually never used. The new crew turnover systems Jaesen is implementing right now (promotions, transfers and casualties) will make replacements become a much more active part of the game. The downside of that is that it will use up renown if you choose to implement the feature.

I can think of a couple of ways to do it, but perhaps the easiest is to change the renown requirement to "purchase" new crew members. It would force the user to go to the "barracks" to look for new crew members. What I'm thinking is perhaps a very nominal renown (0, 5, or 10) requirement, but the higher ranking officers would only have one specialty (i.e. watch, repair, torpedo). I'd think the same should be true for the warrant officers as well. I'll have a look at the files to see if it's possible.

Basically the problem is that ships guarding a convoy have standing orders to cruise at the convoy's speed, so if they get stuck for 45 minutes on a search routine, after it's over they steam along oblivious to the convoy, constantly lagging behind it. Unless they actually spot you with their sonar, radar, hydrophone or AI eyeball, they won't do anything even if they seem to be able to clearly see ships being hit by torpedoes. After 45 minutes they are only perhaps 8km away, but even at 8km, the chances of spotting a periscope is very small, and sonar and hydrophones have no chance at that range. The only chance an escort has of spotting the periscope is by radar, and I'm not sure how far out even that goes, or how reliable it is.

Interesting. I know while running RUb 1.43 I've seen escorts steam off at full speed to rejoin the convoy. It's usually one of the things I'm listening for when avoiding escorts. As soon as they kick in high speed (as reported by my SO) I know it's safe to come to PD. Maybe there's a range on this as well. For instance if the convoy is more than x km away, the escorts won't rejoin at max speed. I can think of at least one instance where I noticed an escort lagging way behind. At the time I wrote it off to the heavy seas.

[Beery]

Originally Posted by panthercules

...I would have thought that it would be more likely that if one of your crew was transferred off your boat you would get a relatively green replacement - after all, what would really be the point to a "lateral" move or exchange of crewmen in terms of overall U-bootwaffe personnel policy/efficiency?

What would be really cool though is if for every relatively senior crewman you had taken away from you in a transfer you would be able to promote one of your other crewmen to step up and take his place - just think how proud Dieter would be at becoming a brevet Oberstabsbootsmann :P

Exactly. The important thing to realise in these situations is that by the time you get a crewman who is to be promoted you'll also have other crewmen who have risen in the ranks, so you're likely to have a man already in the crew who is ready to take the vacant position, and you'll have a guy who can take his position too. After promoting from within the boat, the only person you're likely to need will be a raw recruit. This will cost in terms of renown for NCOs and officer recruits, but it will be much less of a cost than if you had to buy a very qualified officer or NCO replacement. Because of this, I think the replacement system will work much better than the standard system, in that there will be a real reason to get a raw recruit.