[REL] Real Fleet Boat

[panthercules]

LOL - DAM YOU BEERY!! I knew my strategy would work to flush out the next RFB version, but I didn't know how right I would be. I knew if I broke down and started making all my personal tweaks to 1.3 that you would finally come out with the new RFB just to make all that work a waste. Sure enough, I just tonight finished all that tweaking and then popped in here and saw that your update was posted today :rotfl:

We all owe Beery a great big thanks for sticking with this and getting the new version out But, all you guys who have been waiting for this day also owe me big time for taking one for the team and wasting my time like this just to make sure that Beery got it done now

[Slainte Maith]

Beery:
I know it kills the gameplay vs. realism factor, but most (I can only think of one exception--Fluckey) Sub captains in WWII in the pacific were only permitted -four- patrols, and only that if they were 3/4 -successful- patrols. Psychologists seemed to be in charge of this at the time, and they deemed that more than four patrols were too stressful on the individual. (In fact, Fluckey almost lost his fifth patrol due to a de-stressing rule bending misunderstanding) Usually after a fourth patrol, sub-drivers were kicked upstairs, or found other jobs.

This may stem debate. It shouldn't. But I think (if it's moddable) the success factor of previous patrols should be the main concern in a player having another past #4. Also, I think in some ways the game play might be -better- knowing that within the mission requirements, you have to find ways to increase the productivity (destructivity?) of patrols to thwart the pending deadline. This could be based on tonnage alone, but it seems to me the types of targets are valid as well.

...my two cents.

P.S. LOTRO is quite fun. =)

[nimitstexan]

Out of curiosity, what prompted the reinclusion of the decoy dispensers? The last I saw, I thought everyone had agreed it is ahistorical . . .

[Beery]

Originally Posted by Slainte Maith

Beery:
I know it kills the gameplay vs. realism factor, but most (I can only think of one exception--Fluckey) Sub captains in WWII in the pacific were only permitted -four- patrols, and only that if they were 3/4 -successful- patrols.

Quite a few commanders did more, and some who were not so successful did more:

Crowley in S-28 did 5 patrols in Alaska and, like many Alaska skippers, got no tonnage at all.

Davidson in USS Blackfish (Gato class) got no confirmed tonnage at all in 6 patrols out of Scotland and Brisbane, only to get one ship for 2000 tons on his 7th patrol.

Donaho in USS Flyingfish (Gato class) got no sinkings in his first four patrols out of Pearl, yet he went on to command two more patrols.

Hills in USS Perch II (Balao class) got no sinkings - not even claims - in 5 patrols out of Pearl and Fremantle.

Lucker got no sinkings in 5 patrols in S-40 out of Manila, Java and Brisbane, yet he went on to command USS Barb in a patrol in which he also got no tonnage.

Waterman, also commanding USS Barb, got no confirmed tonnage in his first 5 patrols, finally getting a single ship for 2200 tons on his sixth.

Munson in S-38 got one transport for 5628 tons on his fourth patrol - he went on to do two more patrols in the same boat, both with no tonnage. This was not in Alaska - he operated out of Java and Australia. Then he took command of USS Crevalle in which he did 3 successful patrols. Then he took command of Rasher in which he got 5 ships sunk for 53,600 tons in one patrol. This was a commander whose beginning can hardly be called auspicious, yet he ended up the 5th highest-scoring captain in terms of tonnage. If he'd been retired after 4 patrols he would have had a total of 5628 tons. In the end he had 67630 tons and did a total of ten patrols.

Schmidt in S-32 got no sinkings in 7 patrols in the Atlantic and the Aleutians.

However, in principle I agree with what you're saying. In fact I've always said that in order to play RFB correctly patrols have to be limited to between two and around eight, with an average of four. This is not a situation where realism and gameplay conflict - I believe that this limitation enhances gameplay, since it makes career survival that much more possible.

As for modding the game to make it so that success equates to longevity, I very much doubt it can be done. But anyway the above examples show that such a rule would not be entirely realistic. Crowley, Davison, Donaho, Hills, Lucker, Waterman and Schmidt would be retired under such a system before they were in real life.

[tater]

While I agree with modding to make the game historically dangerous, not etxra challenging for the player, I think the target should be slightly deadlier than a gross look at the RL stats would suggest. At the very least, I think you need to dump all the patrols that didn't contact the enemy from the lost subs/patrols ratio.

In addition, I guess I would dump patrols that didn't meet enemy escorts. If you had sinkings but they were sampans or lone, unescorted ships, different ball game.

Part of the problem, of course, is that the stock game grossly over escorts. You find a convoy it WILL have 4 DDs escorting. Early the stock has many set to geneic, late war they seem to have prefered the least likely to be used in the role, which is also the most capable, Akizuki.

I think you're right though, the goal should be to be scared of getting kileld without actually being killed very often. I had been playing with the AI sensors tweaked up a bit, but the DCs dropped in power quite a bit. The other thing to watch out for is smething like "die slowly." Making such damage more survivable (to the extent it is realistic) means taking a shellacing, and headign back to the barn (assuming you are sensible).

tater

[BH]

beery Thank you for your work updating real fleet boat.

[Jhereg]

Beery, another happy camper LOL. Thanks for all the hard work in trying to get this game where it shoulda been from the get go. If it were not for guys like you I would not get to blow so much of my time....heh! The limitations of diesel boats makes for a far more satisfying experience. I agree completely with your assesment of RW fleet boat success versus sunk ratio as we lost I think 50 boats in the Pac. Normally I lurk in all forums but as I am a Sonar Tech this has a special place in my heart, and can be a useful learning experience. Hell, modern diesel boats only get about an hour at max RPM on their batteries, yet are a potent threat. Once again thank you!

[chris455]

First Beery, thank you for your hard work, RFB1.3 is a beautiful mod.
Question- I noticed in the readme that you had to withdraw Mav's cmera mod- is this why I cannot zoom in as much as before in the "next unit" view? And if so, can this be fixed? I feel like I'm a mile out now when I look at my boat!
Thanks again, great job!

[Mylander]

Thank you once again, Beery! Great job!

Mylander

[Beery]

Originally Posted by chris455

First Beery, thank you for your hard work, RFB1.3 is a beautiful mod.
Question- I noticed in the readme that you had to withdraw Mav's cmera mod- is this why I cannot zoom in as much as before in the "next unit" view? And if so, can this be fixed? I feel like I'm a mile out now when I look at my boat!
Thanks again, great job!

I only adjusted the next unit view a tiny bit to reduce the foreshortening effect. It should be fairly close to how it was in RFB 1.28.

[perisher]

Originally Posted by Beery

RSM eh? That's quite an accomplishment! And in't Great War no less. I've just been waxing lyrical over at Amazon.com about a favourite movie of mine - Richard Attenborough in 'Guns at Batasi' - a really great film and a great character of a RSM played by Dickie. If you haven't seen it grab it if you can.

I agree it is a superb performance by Attenborough. An old style RSM to a tee.

My other Granddad was in the Royal Engineers' Balloon Company in the Boer War. Later he worked at Ruston's in Lincoln and was foreman of the gang that built "Mother" the first tank. His son, my uncle, after service in the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers became a tank "test pilot" for the Royal Ordnance, drove every British tank from Churchills to Chieftains. It a wonder that I'm not into tank sims.

[RDDR]

My thanks for your update.
Much appreciated.

[Beery]

Originally Posted by perisher

It a wonder that I'm not into tank sims.

Yeah. Sadly though, there hasn't been a really good tank sim made. The last tank sim I enjoyed was M1 Tank Platoon 2, and that was lacking in terms of its campaign - in my opinion linear campaigns have no place in a simulation game.

I'd love a really good tank sim. Actually it's hard to find any sort of sim these days. Time was when simulations were all over the computer game store shelves, but these days it's all FPSs and MMOGs - it's sad really that the game industry has been taken over by the lowest common denominator - lots of explosions, mass-killing and pretty graphics instead of thoughtful game design. At least every now and again we get a good sim like SH3 and SH4, but I miss the old days when I could go into a game store and see the likes of M1 Tank Platoon 2, Red Baron 2, Falcon 4.0, AH-64 Apache etc.

[perisher]

Originally Posted by Beery

- it's sad really that the game industry has been taken over by the lowest common denominator

Not just the game industry. I had a big disappointment 3 weeks ago when I visited the U-505 in Chicago. To get inside the boat was an extra $10. No problem but for my 10 bucks all I got was a 10 minute sound and light show about how the USN captured the boat. Nothing about submarines in general or Type IXs in particular. Took in as much as I could in the one quick walk through, but was not allowed time to look at anything in detail. The whole exhibit is about displaying an American triumph to an American public and nothing to do with the U-boat. Very disappointing.

I'm not knocking the USA or the USN, it was a fantastic feat of arms and seamanship, although it wasn't the first U-boat to be boarded and captured on the high seas, a fact that isn't mentioned in Chicago, no, I'm complaining about the lack of opportunity to examine the boat, as a boat and not a prize of war.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by perisher

The whole exhibit is about displaying an American triumph to an American public and nothing to do with the U-boat. Very disappointing.

I'm not knocking the USA or the USN, it was a fantastic feat of arms and seamanship, although it wasn't the first U-boat to be boarded and captured on the high seas, a fact that isn't mentioned in Chicago, no, I'm complaining about the lack of opportunity to examine the boat, as a boat and not a prize of war.

OK, as an American, I'll do it! That display tactic is a crime. And I blame the museum more than the USA or USN.

Our whole American submarine strategy and our subs themselves were patterned after the German U-Boats and in a real way were a tribute to the accomplishments of the unterseeboote. Many American submarine skippers studied the tactics of German sub commanders, consciously seeking to imitate them in the Pacific. Were it not for German sub design and tactics, we could have been mired in the Pacific much longer than we were, at the cost of many thousands of American and Japanese lives.