Sinking Times

[melnibonian]

Originally Posted by Achtung Englander

In a way I stopped playing SH3 as I found the GW mod, although fantastic, made the sinking of destroyers near on impossible now. I think the damage model just made the ships too strong

I am waiting for GWX then will start again !!!

Oh you're going to love GWX. Trust me I know what I'm talking about

The damage model is brilliant and all the ships are fantastic.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Achtung Englander

In a way I stopped playing SH3 as I found the GW mod, although fantastic, made the sinking of destroyers near on impossible now. I think the damage model just made the ships too strong

I am waiting for GWX then will start again !!!

What is nice about the GW team is the fact that they listen to what we had issues about with the first GW installment. GWX is the refinement of TGW mod. The new version sould be dead on!!!!

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Hartmann

USS Indianápolis (CA- 35 9,800 tons) takes two torpedoes launched by Commander Mochitsura Hashimoto, former commanding officer of the Japanese submarine I-58 , and sunk in only 15 minutes.:hmm:

Indianapolis was a rather small pre-war "heavy" cruiser, and had no anti-torpedo protection whatsoever; hence the quick sinking.

[Steeltrap]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Indianapolis was a rather small pre-war "heavy" cruiser, and had no anti-torpedo protection whatsoever; hence the quick sinking.

True, but she was a warship and thus had far better internal compartmentalisation than a merchant, and 9800t is still a decent size. Fact is many ships are taking too long to sink at present. It's also kind of annoying to blow the prop off a merchant and have it continue motoring along until flooding catches up with it.....

[Subwolf]

I don't like the GW sinking times, they are overkill in my opinion. Normally a ship less than 3000 tons will sink within a few minutes after just one torpedo impact...and not THREE

[Achtung Englander]

Originally Posted by Subwolf

I don't like the GW sinking times, they are overkill in my opinion

or even under-kill

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Steeltrap

Fact is many ships are taking too long to sink at present.

I agree, but I still prefer it to having every single ship explode as soon as it's hit, then sink in less than a minute. There were large numbers of ships that did take hours to sink, also many which never sank at all.

Of course it's impossible to have the oddballs: one Japanese ship had her back broken, but was still afloat and taken under tow. Several hours later the broken keel finally gave out and the stern sank. The bow was towed to an island and beached, and the forward cargo was transferred to another ship.

We had these same sort of arguments over the one-minute gun reload times with RUB. The fix is unsatisfactory, but I think it's far better than the stock version. Here's one way to tell; how many sinkings versus hits are we getting, on average? Most players list tonnage scores and kill numbers that real U-boat captains could only dream about.

[MRV]

Originally Posted by Subwolf

I don't like the GW sinking times, they are overkill in my opinion. Normally a ship less than 3000 tons will sink within a few minutes after just one torpedo impact...and not THREE

Yesterday I had a fishing boat take about 60 rounds of 88mm Deck Gun before it went down.

hmmm.......normally you should think that boat would be ripped apart after max. 5 Hits.
Same applies to a torpedo-hit on a small merchant, it normally should blow their keels away and they should go down in few minutes. (Take a look at that WWI-Video postet in the SH3 Main Forum to know what I mean). C2 and above may sink slower and sometimes take hours before being below waterline.

[GreyBeard]

Originally Posted by MRV

Yesterday I had a fishing boat take about 60 rounds of 88mm Deck Gun before it went down.

hmmm.......normally you should think that boat would be ripped apart after max. 5 Hits.
Same applies to a torpedo-hit on a small merchant, it normally should blow their keels away and they should go down in few minutes. (Take a look at that WWI-Video postet in the SH3 Main Forum to know what I mean). C2 and above may sink slower and sometimes take hours before being below waterline.

I took out a fishing boat with the flak gun on a Type IIA. Used over 800 rounds to do it though, the majority of it in the stern. Maybe I'm wrong, but that does not seem realistic to me. Last night I came across a small merchant. I had 2 torps left in my IID. I set both of them for 4m depth and put 1 in each side. Then I surfaced and put 1200 rounds from the flak in her, the majority of which I attempted to put in the hull at the water line. Not an easy task with the boat pitching and swells getting in the way. Once the flak gun was empty I stepped up the tc and circled her for over 24 hours, but she just bobbed about in the water like a cork. Two other merchants arrived on the scene during that time and when a destroyer appeared I finally gave up and returned to port.

[VIICDriver]

Using TGW I just put 5 torpedoes into a 2500 ton Coastal to sink it.

5!

1 dead center, stopped her, 1 in the bow, then 1 in the stern. Still just floating along....TCx32 for about half hour no change. Finally put 2 more into her center and she finally sank slowly.

That aint realistic. This was no C3 or battleship it was a 2500 ton ship.

Waiting on GWX to see if the damage model is more correct. Everything else about the mod is dead on.

Chuck

[Steeltrap]

I'd be interested to know if TGW and NYGM use the same damage model. Most of the complaints such as that given by VIICDriver seem to come from TGW. I use NYGM, and I've not had any experiences even close to that.

I also think Sailor Steve is correct in saying them number of catastrophic explosions are excessive in stock SHIII. Certainly major warships are far too easy to sink, and aircraft too easy to bring down.

Guess the issue is how to make it more realistic without ending up with stupid results at either end (i.e. for small ships or large warships).

BTW, please read carefully my initial paragraph. It is a request for information, not a suggestion that one mod is better than another. I have acknowledged that they appear to differ in some of the reports as to sinking behaviour, but that is merely as an explanation of the reason for which I have asked my opening question.

In other words, I don't want to get jumped on by people feeling they need to 'defend' either mod, nor is it a discussion of both mods - apart from the question as to how they treat sinking and people's different experiences with them.

I hope that's clear!

[TarJak]

I've learn't to live with the GW sinking times by being more precise in aiming for weak points. This from what I've read in other threads about the subject was one of the aims of the damage model. The fact that the dev team have changed the model in GWX (again only what I've gleaned from comments in other threads), shows that they thought the damage model was not quite right.

Personally I think they were on the right track, but had made it over hard for some ships to sink. Like everyone else not on the Beta programme I'm waiting patiently to get hold of GWX to see what they've done to get a better balance.

[AVGWarhawk]

Last night I hit a convoy. It took 4 torpedos to sink one tanker and the other tanker went down in seconds after one hit. It is a give and take situation in my view. With exception of the small merchant all the other ships look realistic to me. I do believe the cannon should be stronger.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Steeltrap

I'd be interested to know if TGW and NYGM use the same damage model. Most of the complaints such as that given by VIICDriver seem to come from TGW. I use NYGM, and I've not had any experiences even close to that.

GW uses the damage model created for the original NYGM. There was a lot of back-and-forth sharing at that time. NYGM 2 updated the damage model. I understand it's quite a bit more sophisticated, but I haven't gotten to play with it enough to make my own observations. GWX is supposed to be trying something completely different. We'll just have to wait and see.

[Cerberus]

I saw the title of this thread & thought..
"Splendid!
Someone has started a newspaper especially for the U Boat community."

Misleading I calls it.