This game needs a few more features before its a simulator [Archive]

Dr...Watson

04-24-2005, 01:17 AM

The last 2 patrols I have done have been pretty long, taking up a week or so on my PC, a few hours a night etc.

Returning home I came across a small convoy each time, after a few hours off playing with the destroyers, they eventually got one of the depth charges right and blew my rudder off. I surfaced, repaired the leak, got a torp into the destroyer and used the deck gun to finish him off as he rammed me, I still managed to stay afloat and as he sunk from the ramming???

So now I have no rudder, I spend a while searching for the command to set the port and starboard engines seperatly to get me home but can't find anything - surely this must be simulated. I also see some damage to the engines and try and find how to use the electrics on the surface but still can't see anything.

Im afraid I have wasted alot of hours to end up in this situation, eventually another destroyer found me bobbing around and rammed me, I had medium damage for about 20mins then a screen popped up after looking at the screen for 10 seconds i saw the small writing saying that my sub had flooded (is that the death screen http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif)

Its all a bit too arcady, a bit like flying the cessna is FS9 with forward slow, medium and fast speeds - no prop mixture or coarse control.

Dr...Watson

04-24-2005, 01:17 AM

KiwiVenge

04-24-2005, 01:26 AM

In your example, what would of made it a proper 'simulation'?

Dr...Watson

04-24-2005, 02:03 AM

Being able to steer the boat by using different engine speeds in the diesel engines.

I survived the ramming but the destroyer didn't ha ha...odd??

Using electrics on surface after my diesels were damaged.

All these things should be modelled, without them, its just not a simulation.

tiger_tim_34

04-24-2005, 02:31 AM

I think these are intelligent, exciting and most desirable suggestions. Does anyone else support them? Would they be hard to address in a patch?

They would give the 'player' more tactical options. Just as it would add a deeper layer of involvement to make better use of the radio to receive mission-critical updates, rather than nice-to-know information.

There have been some outstanding suggestions made about this simulation (amongst a considerable amount of meaningless debate): Greater detail on charts, guide to phases of the moon, entry of written/typed notes to name but a very few off the top of my head.

I wonder how many of these are achievable? Could/have the Devs commented on the growing suggestion list?

It is testament to the outstanding quality of this product that it has so fired our imaginations and the *constructive* debate. We have tasted super-simulation, not perfect - but far from common - and we want more.

I know there are limits: limits of development time, money, processor power, degree to which the essential code can be stretched - but I'd love for the Developers to spare a moment to indicate what may be possible and what clearly isn't.

mop2005

04-24-2005, 02:37 AM

I agree with you 100% independant engine adjustment would also help to turn the sub more quickly when trying to get out trouble

KiwiVenge

04-24-2005, 02:42 AM

They are good points, and all ones brought up before. It is like you say tigertim, it is likely a time constraint thing as far as not being implemented yet. As far as improving on these ideas in the future, I would be willing to bet they first address the more 'make or break' aspects that need tending to (late escort spawn bug for one example).
There is a huge list of ideas to implement that would add to the game though, maybe they will get to some of them. If not the devs then maybe some mods.
The missing bits are not drastic enough in my opinion to prevent SH3 from being considered a simulator though. Regardless of difference of opinion in what is or is not a simulator, I find it a fun game to play http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

tiger_tim_34

04-24-2005, 02:54 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by KiwiVenge:
The missing bits are not drastic enough in my opinion to prevent SH3 from being considered a simulator though. Regardless of difference of opinion in what is or is not a simulator, I find it a fun game to play http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Absolutely, KiwiVenge. I really do think that we have been given so much, we now want it all! Heh. Well, there's always SH4 and until then, the wonderful job that has been done (and is still being done) on SH3 will keep thousands of us very, very happy indeed.

Daxos1942

04-24-2005, 03:34 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by tiger_tim_34:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by KiwiVenge:
The missing bits are not drastic enough in my opinion to prevent SH3 from being considered a simulator though. Regardless of difference of opinion in what is or is not a simulator, I find it a fun game to play http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Absolutely, KiwiVenge. I really do think that we have been given so much, we now want it all! Heh. Well, there's always SH4 and until then, the wonderful job that has been done (and is still being done) on SH3 will keep thousands of us very, very happy indeed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I too want it all, but I'm also a realist, and somewhat of a fan of subsims. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

I believe that I've played them all, or nearly all. Prior to this one, my all time favorite was CAoD which I played off and on for years and in rather long stretches. Well, this one is the best! No doubts about it. Never mind the quantum better graphics, the crew, the outside camera, the varied classes of weapons, turrets and boats,etc. The Manual Targetting System alone is worth the price of admission. When I first saw the colored triangle disappear from under a target in the periscope, I was in subsim heaven! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

tiger_tim_34

04-24-2005, 03:45 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>When I first saw the colored triangle disappear from under a target in the periscope, I was in subsim heaven! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Call me Captain Thicky McThick of the U-Boat 'Noob', but what is this wonderful triangle detail of which you speak?

Daxos1942

04-24-2005, 04:06 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by tiger_tim_34:

Call me Captain Thicky McThick of the U-Boat 'Noob', but what is this wonderful triangle detail of which you speak? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We were all waiting for the first sim with a well developped targetting system were you had to compute the target's speed, angle, direction of travel..., all of it fed into a firing solution "computer" just like they did it in real life, instead of that silly triangle which locked on target and changed colors from red to orange to yellow to green as the firing angle improved, at all times computing speeds and range without making a single error. The other annoyance, of course, was the "god" screen which updated everyone's position relative to your boat in real time and constantly, also without any errors.

Capt.LoneRanger

04-24-2005, 04:23 AM

Very fascinating thread.

Dr...Watson, your story is an excellent example of how good the sim actually is:

1. I wonder what tactics you used that you encountered the destroyers and fought them for hours before trying to engage the convoy?
2. You hit a destroyer with a torpedoe and wonder why it sank minutes later!? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
VERY unrealistic, yes, indeed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif
Especially as you say you attacked him with DeckGun, too, as he rammed you. Of course, he sunk because he rammed you, no doubt about that.....
3. You sank a ship and waited on the surface - LOL - no wonder a second destroyer got to your position quickly....
4. I think there is a major misconcenption here. Different engine control was rarely used. The reason is quite simple: The thing that makes the turning quicker with different engine control is extremely dependend on the distance of the propellors from the ships axis. It's what we all learned from the 'law of the lever' in school. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
If you want a pleasant example how wrong your idea about different engine setting is: The Captain of the Titanic ordered the port engines to run full reverse to increas turn rate. The problem however is, that the propellers move the water over the rudder and cause a 'vector-thrust'. If the propellers move reversed, this vector-force is nullified. In the example of the Titanic, this was the last and biggest mistake of the Titanics Captain, according to historicans and navy experts. If he had used both engines in full forward, the additional turning force had been enough to avoid the ice-berg.

Considering the propellers on a submarine are a lot closer together makes the request and the sense of it really unjustified.

5. There is no such thing as a 'prop mixture'. What should that be? But you can change prop-pitch and fuel-mixture in any prop-plane in FS9 (In the chessna the red and blue lever to the lower right http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif ) And of course you can increase the engine power by 1% incrementals. I doubt you need more than 100 settings for your throttle. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

xscreamist1

04-24-2005, 05:02 AM

Lone ranger is completely correct about the effect of reversing one engine to achieve a quicker turn. If you want to make a quicker turn you could use an old sub chaser trick, called a slam back. Originally designed to stop a ship in a emergency collision situation on smaller boats like a destroyer you could actually force the boat to turn on a dime.
Heres what you do you go full throttle forward until you achieve a good forward momentum then start into a full rudder turn...then you throw the engines into full reverse, giving full rudder in the opposite direction at the same exact time. The timing is crucial...but i watched a destroyer named the bunker hill in the sea of japan make a 180 deg turn in about minute during sea trials. The idea is based on same concept that Capt. LoneRanger is talking about in his post above this one. It's not used on subs too often in modern days because it causes cavitation...and I doubt if submerged they would use it during ww2 because it would cause a wall of bubbles to rise up like a kid blowing bubbles thru a straw in his milk.

But being able to use the electrics on the surface would be nice although i don't recall ever reading anything about any german uboat captains doing this at all. I don't know if it was possible if the diesel engines were damaged. Anyhow, if you ran out of fuel for you diesels..you could only chug around for like 36 hours at 2knots on the electric motors.

Dr...Watson

04-24-2005, 06:02 AM

You are making too many assumptions Lone Ranger.

I was taking on water after having been depth charged for hours, I had already sunk 2 cargo ships and spent the rest of the engagement trying to shake of the destroyers. My rudder had been blown off so I could not steer the boat (I never mentioned anything about turning quicker with seperate engine controls, obviously it doesnt have much effect as you explained) I had to surface, the destroyer was 500 yards behind and I managed to hit him with a aft torpedo) he never sunk, around 1 min later when he caught me up, he ran over my stern and within 10 seconds of him doing so he was was sinkning fast while I was still chugging along for another hour. The next destroyer found me half an hour later, he was firing the deck gun at me from miles away, he got to withing 4 or 5 hundered yards without hitting me, he rammed me and then i got the death screen thingymabob.

Maybe I could have got him with my deck gun but I didnt have time, I was too busy managing the reapirs as the other men don't seem to know when to repair something, or sleep for that matter.

Seperate engine controls were used quite often in real life, but not for turning better.

Electrics were used almost all the time when departing the docks so as not to set off the acoustic mines that were frequently dropped into the harbour area. There are a few stories of inexperienced people taking the boats out on diesel engines and detonating the mines.

Capt.LoneRanger

04-24-2005, 06:25 AM

Okay, still, there is no reason to believe that the DD was sunk solely by hitting you? That may have been the final thing, but considering damage what amount of damage the DD had taken before, it may have also been the little rest needed to sink the DD. It could also be the fire or taking on water was the cause for the death. I'm just saying there's no way to know and you can't assume that the DD sunk ONLY because it hit you - and even that would be realistic, as some DDs infact were crippled or lost during those maneuvers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Seperate engine management, as xscreamist1 also explained beautifully, is nonsense for a submarine, especially when under water.
The only thing it was used for, AFAIK was to run on diesel and recharge batteries with the second engine. It was used on many US-subs, AFAIK. It makes just no sense to run on one diesel or electric engine, when both are available, not to speak of using them in seperate speeds.

I also doubt the statement about the boats leaving ports on electric engines only is correct. Those ports were not only used by submarines, but also by conventional ships, freighters and auxillary ships, not to mention towing ships, that are used to assist ships in port. If that was true, then ports are correct, as they are now: No ships, other than your own sub. I'd really like to see a link or quote of that information.

Iphicles2005

04-24-2005, 07:42 AM

Dr. Watson does bring up very valid points and actual aspects to this sim that have not been incorporated yet.

In regards to the ramming tactics, one the the best ways to get the sub to submerge was to have the closest ships in the vicinity to the sub make a dash at ramming her (with much success) and then to have the DD's depth charge the hell out of her. Unfortunately, in our situation, DD's that do ram tend to suffer more damage than the actual sub. I grant that damage was taken on by the surfaced vessel, with a possible sinking occurring, but most U-boats that were rammed didn't have a high survival rate.

Electrics on surface: A definite feature that is missing and it is much needed to enhance the realism aspect. In all articles/books that I have so far read, U-Boats did in fact use thier electrics on surface, especially when leaving thier docks. They would reverse on electrics, turn the boat around and head out thier harbor on electrics so that the acoustical mines that the Tommies were dropping would not be set off by the diesel's (Read Iron Coffins, a sinking is well described by the author by failure to use electrics in the harbor).

Having control of each engine is a feature that I would love to see added in eventually. I'm not a sailor, but I have read, multiple times, that skippers did use alternate engines in thier navigation tactics (I have no clue if it were to make tighter turns or not, or how it would affect my gameplay) but it did occur.

I'm hoping that in the near future these features can also be added. Planes were the definite bane to U-Boats, I want thier hit probability to increase. The planes we have now are just video pixels to shoot down, than actually impeding my surface cruise. U-boats did in fact shoot down airplanes, but airplanes sunk a hell of a lot more U-boats. Currently it's not set up that way.

Good points mentioned Dr. Watson.

S VIIC_41

04-24-2005, 07:53 AM

Well Lone Ranger, fact is, many a full health destroyer has rammed into a u-boat in this game and gone down like a stone while the boat survives with little hull integrity lost.

I remember in SHII if you saw a ship coming for you it was like "****! If he hits me I'm dead!"

And you were.

Vincent555

04-24-2005, 07:54 AM

LoneRanger, I agree with you one hundred percent on the engine-turn story.

But the german submarines DID leave ports on e-machines only. They did this, as Dr Watson explained, to avoid the acoustic mines setting off.
Evidence of this can be found in the book Iron Coffins by Herbert A Werner.
He also describes the loss of his boat and two crewman by an unexperienced exec. who left the port without the captain's approval. He had used noisy diesels instead of the E-motors and set off a mine that was dropped right outside of the U-Boat pen.

I don't know how the freighters avoided the mines but I DO know that it was standard procedure to leave the ports on E-motors.

Dr...Watson

04-24-2005, 10:25 AM

I have read a few books and watched many documentaries on U-boats.

Iron Coffins by Herbert A. Werner was by far the best read.

Here are just a few quotes from the book that I could find.

ââ‚¬Å“U-557 slid away in reverse, silently. Very slowly she separated from the pier, cleared her submerged hydroplanes, then increased speed. 50m off the pier, the Exec swung the boat around and ordered the diesels started, both engines half ahead together, steer 95ââ‚¬Â¦..ââ‚¬Â

ââ‚¬Å“At exactly 1400, U-557 separated from the pier. The boat slid away in complete silence, powered by electric motors. She maneuvered into navigable waters, then her diesels took over the driveââ‚¬Â¦.ââ‚¬Â

ââ‚¬Å“We proceeded towards grid BB90 to operate on the convoy route between Halifax and St John. The radiant sunshine surprised us after several days of blindness. The sea was choppy but the air was mild. We slowly patrolled the routes for 2 days with only one diesel working at a timeââ‚¬Â¦..ââ‚¬Â

ââ‚¬Å“U-557 sailed out of Lorient under electric power. When she had Port Louis on her left, the diesels began to mutter their old, intimate song. Our escort vessel departedââ‚¬Â¦..ââ‚¬Â

ââ‚¬Å“A few commands, and the lines were removed from the pillars, the gangway pushed back to the pier. U-953 slid silently out of her berth. She glided towards the middle of the Bay, cautiously, noiselessly, so as not to activate any acoustic minesââ‚¬Â¦.U-953 crept into the shadows of our escort, when we passed the submerged net I switched to dieselsââ‚¬Â¦.ââ‚¬Â

ââ‚¬Å“In a short time we spotted the silhouette of a small minesweeper sent out to our rescue. After we had answered her challenge, the vessel hurried back into port with her minesweeping gear rattling loudly. Six acoustic mines detonated at various distances in the arc ahead of the trawler. The concussions drove our whole company out of the hullââ‚¬Â¦..ââ‚¬Â

ââ‚¬Å“Angry at my slip up (sleeping in), I dressed speedily, rushed down the staircase five steps at a time in the blazing sun. I spotted my boat. She was sailing stern first into the inner basin, with diesels fuming. My temper flared. The Exec had no right to take my boat out without specific instruction. A thunderous explosion rocked the air. A huge fountain rocked skyward ââ‚¬Â¦heaving 2 of my men through the airââ‚¬Â¦.U-415 had been hit by a mineââ‚¬Â¦why had he used the diesels instead of the electric motors? Those questions rose in my tortured mind.ââ‚¬Â

HeibgesU999

04-24-2005, 10:41 AM

It's funny that no subsim has every simulated the two engines being able to go into forward and reverse seperately.

But every subsim ever has allowed you to run electrics on the surface, so its strange SH3 is lacking this feature.

Sh2 had that same problem with dds always sinking when dd and uboat collide.

Using the deckgun to take on destroyes has been an exploit in every subsim every made. But only the arcade player would use the deckgun in this manner, so no real subsimmer uses it in this fashion.

But if you play even the perfect sim like an arcade game, is will play like an arcade game.
That's why the old cranky GS-12's always yell at you in SIMNET if you're not using realistic armor tactics.

Capt.LoneRanger

04-24-2005, 10:42 AM

@ S VIIC_41
As I allready said, this is quite realistic, especially if the boat is surfaced. Still, the 5 DDs, the one small freighter and 2 C2s I had "close encounters" with, definately didn't sink, surfaced or not. So, if this one or the ones you encountered did, okay, but it's not a general rule, so it's fine with me.

For the mine-thing:
I HIGHLY doubt it. The reason? I spend my time in the NAVY on the FGS Frauenlob M-2658, as the designation shows, a minesweeper. We were equipped to find and explode (or disarm) any types of mines, INCLUDING acoustic mines. And though we basically had just upgraded engines, the boat itself was built at the end of WW2. It didn't have electric engines, but it DID have a wooden bow. Why? Because there are 3 basic types of mines: Magnetic-, acoustic- or contact-fused. The acoustic-mines were first deployed by German submarines in the British Channel and they were used against major shipping. The reason is simple: The mechanics used for the fused didn't even react to the engine pounding, but to the cavitation from the propellers. I doubt a submarine engine, that is built to run silent was able to set off an acoustic mine, if our boat wasn't. I also wonder what evidence they had left to confirm it was an acoustic mine!?

Infact the majority of mines actually used were contact fused (in WW1 48 German submarines were sunk by contact mines that protected harbours) and they weren't positioned at a specific place, but used as floating mines. Those and the protecting mines were usually the graveyard of unexperienced skippers, not accoustic mines set in a harbour.

If at all, I rather guess they departed from a captured town and feared it was mines, maybe they even had some dud-bombs from airraids or they simply chose electric engines to be able to evade drifting mines, but a submarine exploded by an accoustic mine in it's own harbour?

Vincent555

04-24-2005, 12:16 PM

Loneranger You say that acoustic mines were detonated by propellor noise.

But that doesn't prove that the u-boat captains never used the e-motors to evade the mines. There may be another reason why they did this: They may have not known that the diesels didn't set the mines off or they could have just been very cautious.

I know i would try to minimise my noise production in every way possible, and if you have the possession of electric motors that are much more quiet than you're noisy diesels, why not using them?

I think it's best to try to think of other reasons why captains left on e-motors, before calling an former U-boat captain a liar.

BTW. If you would've read Iron Coffins you would also know that the British were dropping more and more acoustic mines as the war progressed so they could very well be destroyed by a british mine dropped in a german port without the minesweepers finding them.(the mines)

Dr...Watson

04-24-2005, 01:02 PM

My last quote, which is taken near the end of the book, clearly shows that the U-boat was destroyed by an accoustic mine when an inexperienced engineer took the boat towards the repair dock on diesel engines.

The author couldn't have stressed any more the importance of using electrics in harbour as all throught the war, the Brits were scattering mines anywhere the could around the U-boat pens.

What gets me is the fact that alot of us have probably been up in a Cessna 152 and so we can comment on what that flight model is like, we have taken our cars to track days and thrashed them around, or watched Shumi's F1 car from the camera above his helmet...we don't know what its like to be a WWII U-boat commander unless you have read the litreture from the horses mouth.

I would highly recommend that if you want to keep playing this game, stay away from all the good U-boat books becasue after you read them you will realsise that there are so many things missing in the sim (and so many trivial things put in place) that the enjoyment factor goes down.

You are supposed to be a captain of a sub, but when I am below deck, I feel like I am a statci camera fixed to a single point in the air. I can't adjust engines, I can't fly the boat, I can't do trim dives and setup the sub for the cruise, Im just giving basic commands. Its like being the commander in FS9. Just give the autopilot new commands but never fly the aircraft, never change fuel tanks, never trim, never adjust the prop pitch, fuel mixture, or land...just my opinion.

KiwiVenge

04-24-2005, 02:05 PM

So you are saying if you are learned or read books about subs, you won't enjoy SH3 as much?
heheheh
Here comes the flame fest.....
Think of the position you just put people in. Lets say they are submariners themselves and enjoy SH3, and see you state something like that.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Charlie901

04-24-2005, 02:40 PM

I personally don't give a Rat's A$$ about the reasons for using the Electric Engines on the Surface (Mines or whatever?).

I just want to be able to do it!

I think it's really crummy that this is "Auto" managed for us, just like when your C.E. "Auto" starts the battery recharge immediately when you hit the surface!!!

Maybe I need the extra speed topside and I don't want the blasted Engine "Automatically" switched off to "Recharge the Batteries" the exact second I surface!

For once, as the U-Boat Commander, I would love to whip, the C.E., with a rubber hose for this. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Dominicrigg

04-24-2005, 02:41 PM

I get what you are saying watson, but then again i have read lots on the subject and seen a lot on tv, and to me it still is cool fun.

All the things you ask for then, although fun, are not necessary. A captian wouldnt swap fuel tanks, trim dives would eventually become annoying (Diveing every day and spending 10+ minutes messing about with the boats balance!!

They would all add to the game in terms of longevity but are not that important compared to other things. Also i would think you would find, only a tiny amount of people would actually use these settings, as even with something like manual tdc, only a small percentage use it. So its a lot of work, for a tiny market.

Iphicles2005

04-24-2005, 03:10 PM

I agree that most of the things we want to enhance our sim would be trivial, but e-motors on surface are not. It's a proven tactic that wasn't just used on rare occasions, and the mere fact that most books and articles mentions this feature is a testament to that fact.

As much as I want to empower my sub with "enhancements", I also want my AI enemies (planes specifically) to really improve thier bomb/strafe runs. We are asking for realism, based on information.

In this same regard I /tiphat to the Dev's for making the deck gun only usable on calm seas. I want the realism to cut both ways. Both for the player and for the computer.

Maj_Solo

04-24-2005, 03:41 PM

Dr..Watson, I agree, and things should be ordered on a priority list so that you make those things work that absolutely must work or this is no functioning product at all, so, looking at the things you mension, of those, being able to take damage and have partial damage which you can not fix immediately, or damage that you can fix if you just get away to safe waters and spend some days fixing, or damage you cannot fix but you have to use your skill and get the boat to drydock. Damaged electrical components that make you unable to shoot straight, damaged optics, damage to other sensors, forcing you to make the attack using a combination of other sensors, you have two periscopes so why not. In your case a damage that make it real hard to do battle, but a damage that only requires some minimal skill to get the boat near a port and then have it towed in, so do it need to be simulated or can one say that with the rudder blown off this is the trun rate of the boat, you give the new course or demand this or that much steering and the crew is able to generate this or that much turn rate, cause when no in danger getting the boat to port using asymetric thrust would no be too hard I guess. So how about simulating your rudder doesn't get blown off but gets hit so bad it gets stuck! Now try go where you want to go .... but yes I want the boat to be more simulation of what it is, a U-boat, power, controlsurfaces, sensors, weapons, targetting systems, and a crew that can follow a organization schema and that I don't have to move around and ask Shultz, are you tired? how about you Schwartz? are you tired? no? And then have Burt fall to the floor screaming I am tired!!! SKipper!!! Where caaaaan I sleeeep?!?!?! Well lets see, you can use bunk number 15 ... would that be allright? For example what is the effect if a compartment is flooded, must the boat sink? I can see about the forward part of the boat since those rooms are big but the tiny rooms in the back. To be a sim and also a sim of what was the skippers job or the officers job on a boat it needs more polishing. I don't like that my deaths have been so instant with no simulation that explains why the result was what it was. First sinking in the english channel I accept, a depth charge right onto the center of the boat that must have almost borke its back and multilpe floodings in multiple compartments I accept that one, but my second time the two DDs droped on close to the tail which has this tiny torped room back there and it got red and we were dead in 0.5 seconds with no chance of shutting the hatches or repair anything. I think it would be fun to have much better simulation of what the boat actually is ... a boat ... and damage modelling .... so that when you get multiple damage you have to make split second descision what needs to be fixed first, no expert on subs but I think batteries don't like sea water and also can generate some toxic gases which will affect the other simulated part "the crew". Then there could be some intense struggle for your life there under water. Even if you would go under anyway it is worth the fight.

Iphicles2005

04-24-2005, 03:55 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Maj_Solo:
Dr..Watson, I agree, and things should be ordered on a priority list so that you make those things work that absolutely must work or this is no functioning product at all, so, looking at the things you mension, of those, being able to take damage and have partial damage which you can not fix immediately, or damage that you can fix if you just get away to safe waters and spend some days fixing, or damage you cannot fix but you have to use your skill and get the boat to drydock. Damaged electrical components that make you unable to shoot straight, damaged optics, damage to other sensors, forcing you to make the attack using a combination of other sensors, you have two periscopes so why not. In your case a damage that make it real hard to do battle, but a damage that only requires some minimal skill to get the boat near a port and then have it towed in, so do it need to be simulated or can one say that with the rudder blown off this is the trun rate of the boat, you give the new course or demand this or that much steering and the crew is able to generate this or that much turn rate, cause when no in danger getting the boat to port using asymetric thrust would no be too hard I guess. So how about simulating your rudder doesn't get blown off but gets hit so bad it gets stuck! Now try go where you want to go .... but yes I want the boat to be more simulation of what it is, a U-boat, power, controlsurfaces, sensors, weapons, targetting systems, and a crew that can follow a organization schema and that I don't have to move around and ask Shultz, are you tired? how about you Schwartz? are you tired? no? And then have Burt fall to the floor screaming I am tired!!! SKipper!!! Where caaaaan I sleeeep?!?!?! Well lets see, you can use bunk number 15 ... would that be allright? For example what is the effect if a compartment is flooded, must the boat sink? I can see about the forward part of the boat since those rooms are big but the tiny rooms in the back. To be a sim and also a sim of what was the skippers job or the officers job on a boat it needs more polishing. I don't like that my deaths have been so instant with no simulation that explains why the result was what it was. First sinking in the english channel I accept, a depth charge right onto the center of the boat that must have almost borke its back and multilpe floodings in multiple compartments I accept that one, but my second time the two DDs droped on close to the tail which has this tiny torped room back there and it got red and we were dead in 0.5 seconds with no chance of shutting the hatches or repair anything. I think it would be fun to have much better simulation of what the boat actually is ... a boat ... and damage modelling .... so that when you get multiple damage you have to make split second descision what needs to be fixed first, no expert on subs but I think batteries don't like sea water and also can generate some toxic gases which will affect the other simulated part "the crew". Then there could be some intense struggle for your life there under water. Even if you would go under anyway it is worth the fight. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not meant as a flame but as constructive criticism, please seperate your thoughts when writing on these forums, it will make it much easier to read

xscreamist1

04-24-2005, 06:13 PM

I needed to respond to the idea that uboat captains would use electric motors to leave port to avoid setting off the accoustic mines. During WW2 the acoustic mines were designed to react to only very specific sound of engine and propeller noises. A ship that the mine was not designed to attack could drive over the mine over and over and it would never trigger the device. There is no reason why a german uboat would need to run on electrics to avoid detonating them, the acoustic signature that the mine is keyed on would not attack a friendly boat.
They worked alot like the acoustic torpedo in that once the sound of an engine or propeller noise is programmed into them they will only seek out that sound.
Now why the sub commander chose to go to electric motors when leaving port baffles me...who knows maybe he was paranoid...but that wasn't standard uboat procedure.

tcrossma

04-24-2005, 06:36 PM

I'm very new to this game, and frankly not very good at it yet, and I don't know much at all about subs or sims yet.

I was watching "Hunt for Red October" tonight and I heard Sean Connery say "right full rudder, reverse starboard engine"

As I said, I don't know if Hunt for Red October is considered an accurate sub movie, and of course it is in a much more recent time frame, but that movie at least utilized the separate engines.

vonPletz

04-24-2005, 06:51 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by xscreamist1:
I needed to respond to the idea that uboat captains would use electric motors to leave port to avoid setting off the accoustic mines. During WW2 the acoustic mines were designed to react to only very specific sound of engine and propeller noises. A ship that the mine was not designed to attack could drive over the mine over and over and it would never trigger the device. There is no reason why a german uboat would need to run on electrics to avoid detonating them, the acoustic signature that the mine is keyed on would not attack a friendly boat.
They worked alot like the acoustic torpedo in that once the sound of an engine or propeller noise is programmed into them they will only seek out that sound.
Now why the sub commander chose to go to electric motors when leaving port baffles me...who knows maybe he was paranoid...but that wasn't standard uboat procedure. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And how would they know what these mines were programmed for.
The British certanly would not tell them what kind of mines they dropped.

To my mind the prudent course of action would be to make as little noise as possible just in case.

Cheers

xscreamist1

04-24-2005, 07:07 PM

The original post about the acoustic mines had quotea about german submarines that would use electric motors to leave (their own ports) so as not to set off the acoustic mines.

Tcrossma, unfortunately hunt for red october is a story about a fictional submarine. No modern submarines that I know of have multiple screws...they all use the single screw prop...some of the newer ones have casings around the screws to help keep blade noise down.
But it is a good story and was a good movie.

tcrossma

04-24-2005, 07:12 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by xscreamist1:
The original post about the acoustic mines had quotea about german submarines that would use electric motors to leave (their own ports) so as not to set off the acoustic mines.

Tcrossma, unfortunately hunt for red october is a story about a fictional submarine. No modern submarines that I know of have multiple screws...they all use the single screw prop...some of the newer ones have casings around the screws to help keep blade noise down.
But it is a good story and was a good movie. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, I certainly understand that. And if that's the case and all these subs only have a single screw then the original posters (and several subsequent posters) argument for separate port/starboard engine control is somewhat moot, no? Or am I missing something obvious (as I said, i'm very new to this game and sub-sims in general).

Iphicles2005

04-24-2005, 07:16 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by xscreamist1:
I needed to respond to the idea that uboat captains would use electric motors to leave port to avoid setting off the accoustic mines. During WW2 the acoustic mines were designed to react to only very specific sound of engine and propeller noises. A ship that the mine was not designed to attack could drive over the mine over and over and it would never trigger the device. There is no reason why a german uboat would need to run on electrics to avoid detonating them, the acoustic signature that the mine is keyed on would not attack a friendly boat.
They worked alot like the acoustic torpedo in that once the sound of an engine or propeller noise is programmed into them they will only seek out that sound.
Now why the sub commander chose to go to electric motors when leaving port baffles me...who knows maybe he was paranoid...but that wasn't standard uboat procedure. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would you be kind enough to provide facts to go along with your theory? Players in favor of e-motors have stated articles and historical testimonies in regards, would you be kind enough to follow suit please. It would only help your case more.

Simmoxx

04-24-2005, 08:01 PM

Elementary my dear watson......good post indeed

Ubi,please fix or do sumfink!

Dr...Watson

04-25-2005, 12:38 AM

Thats just my opinion. I hear what your saying IP2005....but lets say you are surfaced after leaving the harbour, you come across a convoy "periscope depth", the boat begins to dive but most of the tower is sticking above the water (as often did with unexperienced crews) the boat hasn't been trimmed, he is fighting the controls, trying to hold the boat steady but you are an easy target - most people would would have done their trim dive after leaving harbour then.

Or if there was always a chance of being hut by an accoustic mine when leaving harbour then they would use electrics.

My father was on holiday a few weeks back, he is one of these WWII guru people who seem to know everything, he loves FS9 and IL2 but I thought I would show him SH3 before he bought it, on leaving port for the 1st time, he was looking through the manual for the electric motor commands..I had to tell him its not simulated - its just a game - he is one of these people who shuts down an engine when taxiing back to the gate in FS9 though.

Anyway, breakfast time for me.
Thanks for the replies, that wasn't easy to read Maj_solo lol! But very interesting all the same.

nstutt

04-25-2005, 04:44 AM

If you set a change of course the sub does sem to turn faster than normal - isnt this the crew using the separate engines to turn as well as the rudder? There are two gauges in the control room for the engines but I havent noticed whether they are being using differently whilst in turns. IF your rudder is shot off cant you still turn by ordering changes of course and allow the crew to turn using the engines?

Nats

trebby0

04-25-2005, 05:09 AM

Cpt L. Ranger, having served on an Minesweeper does not automatically mean you are always right does it? I would be a bit more ...open minded if I were you. I think the game has a bug when it comes to collisions between subs and DDs, in the subs favor, adressed in some threads.

After attacking the US East coast during operation Drumbeat with type IX boats it was discovered that it indeed was possible for a type VII to reach and operate on the US East coast, provided max fuel economy was used by operating on....one diesel at a time. (Clay Blair in Hitlers Uboat war, a two part musthave for any Uboat geek.) Makes sense with the fact written above that Werner operated on one diesel too.

Have a nice one.

trebby0

04-25-2005, 05:23 AM

and BTW,

It would be nice to have the E-maschinen to work on the surface too, for another historical reason.
(once again I got this info from Clay Blairs Hitlers UBoat war, forgot which part and page)

After being forced down by 3 escorts U-soandso layed doggo till nightfall. It then sneaked away and surfaced. On starting the Diesel-Motoren, an exhaust plume was spotted by one of the escorts and the Uboat was driven under again, and depthcharged to destruction this time.

So a smart skipper minimizes his visability and sneak away on electrics...
The AI will probably not care about (un)visability tough.

Cheers, trebby

Capt.LoneRanger

04-25-2005, 06:28 AM

@ Vincent555

I'm not calling anybody a liar. I just don't generalize that it was a usuall tactics to leave port on electric engines only.
And the reason why the British used more acoustic mines was the simple fact that they could set the mine to the amount of noise needed to activate them, so they would detonate from the more rewarding targets. That's something you can only do in a limited fashoin with magnetic mines and can't do with contact mines http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

@ Dr...Watson
The FS9-example is quite non-sense. In SH3 you are the skipper of a ship, commanding people that pull the levers, while you are the pilot, the single person operating the plane in FS9. If you were correct and would like to have both equal in realism, you wouldn't be able to man a single station other than periscope. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

@xscreamist1
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Now why the sub commander chose to go to electric motors when leaving port baffles me...who knows maybe he was paranoid...but that wasn't standard uboat procedure. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. Even 2 skippers doing the same thing doesn't make a doctrine.

@vonPletz
If you set mines in a harbour where warships are docked, transporters and tankers roll in and out, would you set the mines to detonate for a silenced submarine? Sure, every kill is a kill, but the first mine that explodes will stop all movements in and out, so you gotta be a bit more choosing on this.

@trebby0
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> I would be a bit more ...open minded if I were you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nice! So why don't you read my post? I didn't say it's okay that every DD sinks after a collision, but it doesn't and a DD hit by a sinking torpedo and shot by deckgun, that sinks after the collision is not the really best example for this imbalance you noted. I didn't say anything else.
If running on one diesel, you won't reach the US in time. The submarines that did had some nice deal: They filled watertanks with additional fuel - oh, this is from Werner, too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Running on one diesel only is not for making a long trip, but because it was neccessary. It is neccessary to have an engine running, if you want to use ships's systems. You can't use most of the internal systems for long, just running on batteries, not to speak of the diesel itself. Those engines were (and are) fuel with ship-diesel, that is mainly the thick brown thing, not the diesel you may put in your engine. If you switch off both engines for too long, it's very possible you can never start them again. For that reason on two-engined ships, (at leas the ships in our squad) it was NEEDED to run engines at least for an hour a day, even though we were docked.
Besides that, running on one diesel with low speed will only bring you, where the waves are pushing you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Don't get me wrong, it would be nice to have all options included into the game, BUT
1. The reasoning of the initial post didn't give that evidence.
2. HOW important is this feature, considering other bugs in the game.
3. How many people would really use it each time the boat leaves the harbour.
4. If these features are implemented, things like manky engines and reliability would have to be included, too, to make up for the changed usage.

Vincent555

04-25-2005, 06:49 AM

Loneranger you say that they would have used their mines for more "rewarding targets"

Now I ask you if you're nearly being choked to death by a group of submarines that are destroying your convoys before reaching your ports, then wat can be a more "rewarding" target than those U-boats themselves?

The germans were unlike the british a land based nation wich had resources coming from every country they occupied. So they didn't have the same need for large convoys to supply them, they were very well independent in terms of resources.

So what I mean with all this is that the british maybe didn't set their mines to the propellor noise of merchant ships, but to the noise of the U-boats propellors.

Dominicrigg

04-25-2005, 06:54 AM

Acoustic mines homed onto any noise. They were not set to certain props. I dont think they even had the technology to do that early war, though the germans did figure it out near the end of the war.

They used leccy motors because they were so quite they usually wouldnt draw an acoustic mine to them. It was common practice for uboats to leave harbour on E motors.

That said there are no acoustic mines in game so no need to leave port on electric motors. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Bong!! edit that bit about them being set for sounds, the germans could set mines to detect certain types of craft as early as 1940, or they could set them to detect any noise. Im not sure if the British had the same technology but since they fished one of these mines out of the Thames estury in 1940 they most likely did.

So they could have been set to sink uboats only!

Capt.LoneRanger

04-25-2005, 07:09 AM

Vincent555, British used acoustic mines excessively from mid 41. At that time the German Submarine peril was fought more efficiently on other fronts.

Dominicrigg, acoustic mines in WW2 weren't able to home at all - they were drifting at best (or heavy ground mines) and of course they couldn't be set to specific props. Who said so?

If you are refering to my posts: The cavitation-sound from surface ships is louder than the engine (modern submarines identify ships by screw, not by the engine-sound) - the bigger and faster the ship, the louder the sound. You could simply set a level of noise as a minimum to set the mine off. And that also makes clear why a silenced submarine engine is unlikely to set off an acoustic mine in a habour, where machinery is running, ships are moving, waves are pounding, etc. The incident with the explosion is seperated from the other incidents, btw. He didn't say it was an acoustic mine, just that he wonders.

The "few" books I read only said boats were leaving port on low RPM, because they didn't want to leave port without knowing diesels worked, so I doubt the doctrine thing. That's all I said. And if it REALLY was a DOCTRINE, the unexperienced officer in Werners book had known.

Doktor81857

04-25-2005, 09:24 AM

I survived the ramming but the destroyer didn't ha ha...odd??

Submarine has a pressure hull, Destroyer doesn't.

Corto

04-25-2005, 09:36 AM

@LoneRanger
I served my duty, 2 years (in Greece we still have conscription), as a navigation officer (Ensign) in a Greek Navy's coastal minesweeper, dated late '40s. While I'll start research for the type (back early '90s we didn't had the pleasure of Internet to share knowledge), can you provide me any details about yours, just in case we have a match?

Thanks
Corto

Capt.LoneRanger

04-25-2005, 11:18 AM

Ahoi, Corto.

"My" boat (FGS Frauenlob, Frauenlob-Class) was part of the 7th Minesweeper-Squadron, 11 boats overall. We were stationed in Neustadt/Holstein, the very Neustadt that is mentioned in the Training in SH3 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
I was part of my service year on the boat, part of it in the staff (anteroom of the commanding officer, mission planning, navigations, equipment and technical instructions)
The boats we had were quite old, Corto. They only survived the end of WW2 because they were used to clean up the baltic sea from mines they layed themselves. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
Accordingly most of the internal equipment, especially crew quarters were only upgraded with a refrigerator since then.

It was discussed to send the boats to the Adriatic Sea, when the flames heated in Yugoslavia, but it was allready confirmed the squadron would be dismantled 1995, so they didn't make that voyage. Honestly, I was quite glad. Those minesweepers were built for the baltic sea and rivers, not the ocean, not even the Mediteranian Sea.
I had several friends from the Operations-School I was at, who served on newer Minesweepers that were in the Adriatic Sea and I know of 3 guys that were on the frigate FGS Brandenburg in that area.

Wow, just saw in the internet, that "my" Boat wasn't dismantled after my service time. It was given to Estland as a present. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Dr...Watson

04-25-2005, 12:17 PM

I see what your saying about my comparison with FS9, it isn't exactly valid I know, I guess I just want more control and less command is SH3.

I guess we will have to wait for SH4 to see what it produces, it would have to be a very big patch to address the issues discussed.

I think there are alot of other issues that will be addressed in future patches and Im glad for that. I would like to see the crew management dropped all together, they should know when its bed time, when they should be on watch duty, in the engine room etc - I don't want the game to turn into Subamarine Tycoon type game. There is the issue with the deck gun in calm water, the problem of the destroyers sinking straight away after ramming my sub. Hopefully they can be addressed soon.

Cheers the noo

Corto

04-25-2005, 12:36 PM

LoneRanger, check this link:
Old Minesweeper (http://www.hellenicnavy.gr/thalia_M210_en.asp)
I served at her sister ship, NIOVI (M254), also mentioned in this page. In the mean time I'm looking in US sites just in case I can find something related to them.

Capt.LoneRanger

04-25-2005, 01:42 PM

That is the problem, IMHO, Dr...Watson. I like the crew management-part in the game, as I did with B17-II. It's a great addition to the game, but yes, it would be nice to be able to just switch it off.
I guess that makes it SO difficult for programmers to make sims: You know of a certain aspect and want it simulated in detail, yet want to leave another item aside.
IMHO mods will take up for this.

Same problem is with the deckgun. It would be best to be able to man flak on higher windspeeds, but only few people know what a 30mph wind can do on a 50cm high deck. Most don't. What makes me wonder is the fact that most of those complaining about the deckgun-thing have high theoretical knowledge read books and all, yet don't know how useless the deckgun was, because it could simply rarely be used at all.

So, personal interests and opinions about "facts" that are most of the time only reports from others cause a lot of hot air. Maybe I'm a bit too cynical about that, but coming from the IL2-boards, I know that these debates are only the beginning. I just want to mention the "Cal-50 kills Tiger-tank - proof"-threads for other insiders.....

Capt.LoneRanger

04-25-2005, 01:51 PM

This is the Acheron, a sister-ship of the Frauenlob I served on:

http://www.die-marine.de/_deutsch/images/bimi.jpg

Facts:
* tonnage: 252 t
* power: 1,470 kw (2,000 HP)
* speed: more than 12 knots
* crew: 25
* weapons
o 1 x gun 40 mm
o Minesweeping and Minelaying capability
o Depth charges

Seems our boat was even smaller. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif But we had the larger gun http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Do you know the Frankental-Class? If I remember correctly they were sent to the Mediteranian sea in early 90s?

Hoatee

04-25-2005, 01:59 PM

A little offtopic I know and consider this an added vote for an idea already posted but it would be rather nice to add a Sunderland to the game, considering Ubisoft sponsorship of both SHIII and the IL2/FB/AEP series of flight simulators.

Dr...Watson

04-25-2005, 02:39 PM

Regarding the deck gun. I really want to have a go at it in choppy water just for a laugh, probably couldnt hit a barn door though. I think there is still an issue though, although it may just be that the visuals of the water dont match up the the windspeed perhaps.

Like you say, I used to frequent the IL2/Lomac boards alot so I know where this can lead to!

cammando429

04-26-2005, 07:16 PM

Here are some of my ideas

*1. extend the time form when you give the command dive to when you actually start diving since the crew has rig everything for underwater travel and one by one go down the hatch

2. make all compartments accessible

*3. fix the type XXI components such as nibelung sonar, and creeping motors

*4. make electric motors able to run on surface

*5. fix crew on watch while there is a large storm

*6. make keyboard shortcuts for man deck gun flak gun and man deck and flak gun

*7. fix Uzo spray problem with nvidia graphics cards

*8.make incremental keyboard rudder control

*9.make MG34 7.92 LMGs seen inside conning tower mountable, and useable on deck

10. add allied sumarines

11. give the option to configure surface weapons ammo loadout while in dock

12. make subs somewhat visible while in shallow depth for the air

*=essential