[REL] Y-thrower, FIXED

[tater]

IJN Depth Charges 20081217 README:

This mod fixes the YGun which has always been broken in SH4. Before this
fix, each Y-thrower throws both DCs in the same direction, instead of
one in each direction as they should.

Because of this failure, many ships never got the Y-throwers that they
had historically. In order to make this mod useful (the only stock ship
with a Y-thrower is the SC Subchaser) I changed the dats of the IJN escorts
to have centerline W nodes so that they could utilize the new YGun.

Since I was doing this, I also used the new IJN DCs created about a year
ago, and now used in RSRDC and RFB.

Thanks to Lurker, and also the RFB Team (I used their DC files as a baseline,
though they are altered from my original mod based on the IDs---I believe
someone fixed a broken rack at some point. I have changed the loads slightly
from what they are in those two mods).

A huge thank to Skwasjer, without whom none of this would have happened. The new version of S3D shows the local axis of the node in question, and looking at that made me realize that in the stock Y Gun, the +Z direction that the parent faced was opposite the direction barrel01 faced. I swapped barrel01 and 02 around, and the Y gun now fires both sides. Visualization courtesy of S3D. Woot!

Where possible, I have tried to have the number of DCs carried correct,
but when that was not possible I tried to err on the side of too many
carried instead of too few. Due to a lack of data, most all of the change
dates are conjectural.


New racks (name of rack, then = the DC it fires):

Roll Racks:
DCRack_TYPE95_1 = Depth_Charge_TYPE95_1 (18 DCs)
DCRack_TYPE95_2 = Depth_Charge_TYPE95_2 (8 DCs)
DCRack_TYPE02_1 = Depth_Charge_TYPE02_1 (18 DCs)
DCRack_TYPE02_2 = Depth_Charge_TYPE02_2 (6 DCs--parachute retarded 95s))

K throwers:
KGun_JP_02 = Depth_Charge_TYPE95_1 (9 DCs)
KGun_JP_03 = Depth_Charge_TYPE02_1 (10 DCs)
Both have 50, 75, 120m ranges (unchanged)

Y-throwers:
YGun_JP_02 = Depth_Charge_TYPE95_1 (10 DCs (5 per side))
YGun_JP_03 = Depth_Charge_TYPE95_1 (18 DCs 9 per side))
YGun_JP_04 = Depth_Charge_TYPE95_1 (20 DCs (10 per side))
YGun_JP_05 = Depth_Charge_TYPE02_1 (18 DCs (9 per side))
Since they only fire 2-sided, I used the 75m RL range, and added slop.
So they shoot to 70, 75, and 80m.

YGun_CD = Type 2 Mod 1 (18 DCs (9 per side) (lower, wider stance to look right
on the CD ships) Heavier charge thrown 55, 65, 75m.

The "stock" stuff:
DCRack_SH4 = Type 2 Mod 1 (18 DCs (modded down from the stock number, 40))

KGun = Type 2 Mod 1 (12 DCs (modded down from the stock number, 40))
45, 70, 100m ranges.

YGun = Type 2 Mod 1 (18 DCs (9 per side)---modded down from the stock
number, 80)
Range is 55, 65, 75m


New Ships:

NDD_Kagero
The Kagero Class was an improved Asashio Class DD. The most notable visual
change was having the reserve torpedo storage for the forward tubes moved
alongside the front stack.

NDD_Yugumo
The Yugumo Class was an improved Kagero Class DD. Visually nearly identical
to Kagero (needs a bigger bridge someday), the Yugmos never had their X
turrets replaced with AA guns since their DP turrets could elevate higher.
In addition, later in the war Yugumos received a 2d AA platform just abaft
of the forward funnel.


DL:

http://files.filefront.com/IJN+Depth.../fileinfo.html


Note that this mod, while using "stock" damage values for the DCs, will result in perhaps easier gameplay in some ways since the number of DCs carried is VERY low compared to stock (typically 9 compared to 40 per thrower).

OTOH, virtually all DDs have throwers now.

This is NOT RSRDC or RFB compatible. Wait for that (very soon I think).

The usual rules apply, free to use for a non-commercial mod, do not use within another mod without permission. (exception: feel free to use guns_radars.dat (where the fixed YGun itself is) at will, no need to ask).

This is version 0.99, feedback welcome so I can make it better.

[tater]

Damn forum won't let me edit again. WTF.

Kagero:



Part of Yugumo, late in the war:

[keltos01]

I'm truly impressed , good job !

Keltos

dl now

[SteveW1]

Tater it seems like filefront is infested with viruses at the moment any chance of you hosting your mod somewhere else?

Steve

[vanjast]

All mods SHOULD go on the BTS website... there you do not get the coporate advertising and other restrictive crap.

Give SwCowdoy a 'call'... NOW SOLDIER !!!

[tater]

I looked there, but it was not readily apparent how I could UL. In general, even having to register is enough to put me off, too, that doesn't help.

ObImage:



(not a WIP, she's done, just not suitable for this release as the stock game won't use her)

are the depth charges numbers historically accurate now with the new numbers you have?

[tater]

The README above says:

Where possible, I have tried to have the number of DCs carried correct,
but when that was not possible I tried to err on the side of too many
carried instead of too few. Due to a lack of data, most all of the change
dates are conjectural.

There is no "correct" number per DC rack, because the ships would have carried some extras below, and such storage varied. We could have them all perfect by adding more racks with variant amounts carried. Still, that would not be 100% accurate, because a roll-rack has 6 ready DCs, for example, and so does a Y gun reload rack. Trouble is that the Y throws 2 ways, so in 3 passes, the Ys are out, and the roll-offs have 3 left, so they take some from storage, etc.

Anyway, the numbers now carried are very close to RL. Many are identical to stats for the ships (though again, even that varied from ship to ship within a class). I tried to err on the side of a few extra rather than a few short.

A stock SC, for example has 2 Y throwers and 2 roll racks. That's 240 DCs in the stock game. She'd have 72 now, max (possibly as few as 32 depending on the year. Actually, thats for 2 racks and 2 Ys, she might have 1 rack and 1 Y at some point and have as few as 16).

Kaibokan with a roll rack and 6 Y-throwers are NASTY if they are skilled.

[cleverusername]

Ships also didn't want to carry too many. DC's blow up quite nicely when hit by airplanes, which were a bigger threat than submarines. Some destroyers would dump all their DC's overboard at the first sign of enemy air attack.

[tater]

^^quite true.

That level of detail gets hard, however, since there is no way to randomize storage.

I shouldn't say NO way, you coupld BP-clone a DD, and give it a different loadout, but you start cluttering the rec manual.

Originally Posted by tater

There is no "correct" number per DC rack, because the ships would have carried some extras below, and such storage varied.

Anyway, the numbers now carried are very close to RL. Many are identical to stats for the ships (though again, even that varied from ship to ship within a class). I tried to err on the side of a few extra rather than a few short.

well im just looking to find out if you tried to get it as close as possible to what they should have had which you did, so i consider it to be a realism fix based on that.

even without the Y-launcher fix, the reduced depth charge numbers to something more realistic would have been a nice fix all by itself.

thank you for this, it will greatly add to the game

[tater]

NP. It's still a WIP, though now progressing rapidly.

I didn't meant to sound short, but I thought the readme was clear.

I decided that for gameplay reasons---partially due to the sort of lame way escorts attack---that more would be better in any cases where the numbers are off. In general, the loadouts are now at most off by a handful of charges. SOme ships listed as having 120 DCs have 126 in this mod, some with 16 have 18. Variations are small.

The real trick compared to RL is that the "ready" DCs on a ship rated for, say, 18, might have been 12. Do you split the 4 extras evenly between the rack/thrower, or all 4 in the thrower? You get the idea

This is all an extension of http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...ight=%5BREL%5D

tater

[tater]

These things can wreck your day.

[keltos01]

nice

do american DDs also have those ?

keltos

[tater]

No. The Allies decided (rightly) that the Y thrower concept wasted deck space since it required clear space on both sides and abandoned the idea (they did build some, but that was before ww2). The USN and RN used K-guns, laterally mounted on the deck, instead.