So SICK of Crying that, "Deck guns can't be manned in bad weather"...!!!

[Charlie901]

Get over it!

It's that way for a reason!
Because this "GAME" tries to mimic real life. There's a reason why very few ships were "Deck Gunned" to death in WWII, and I'm not gonna list them all here. But the bottom line is that when your out bobbing on the surface of the Ocean (like a cork), in a thin, small sub, it's usually very rough, making aiming almost impossible.

The problem is that the "Deck Gun" in this "Game" is unrealistically stabilized.
If it were to move, more with the bouncing of the sub, on the surface of the waves, we'd all look like a bounch of noobs, trying to shoot at ships past 1000m in anything but surf like glass....Jeeeezzz! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

I'm sick and tired of hearing that we can't man our guns when the weather says it's too rough, yet the waves look fine! Use some artistic license here, cause the Devs could not possibly have moddelled every single wave level for every possible wind speed. At best, we probably are only going to get a half dozen levels of surface wake in this "Game".

If you all want visible real world weather for every possible condition you better wait till the mother of all supercomputers arrives, in the next millenium!

Until then, if you get a message that the weather/waves are too rough to use the deck gun, believe what your being told and stop relying on limited eye-candy to make the decision for you.

Next thing you know the Devs might actually listen to these cry babies and give us, "Call of Duty", on the water, where we can sink the entire Brittish Navy in one sitting with our FPS deck gun...... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

[malkuth]

Yeah your right in a sense but mostly the reason was cause it was alot safer to Torpedo a ship then use the deck gun.

Deck gun really isnt the biggest issue. Some people don't like the fact that Flak Gun can't be manned either. But then again, uboats didnt make it a habbit attack planes either.

[Charlie901]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by malkuth:
Yeah your right in a sense but mostly the reason was cause it was alot safer to Torpedo a ship then use the deck gun.

Deck gun really isnt the biggest issue. Some people don't like the fact that Flak Gun can't be manned either. But then again, uboats didnt make it a habbit attack planes either. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Yeah, I'd like too see statistics that showed how many U-boat commanders decided to go toe to toe with A/C rather than diving and playing it safe?

Good luck forcing that lowly crewman or two topside to man the Flakgun to face of an A/C screaming in at you, at hundreds of miles an hour, with 6 cannons firing all at once, then 500lb bombs flying straight at you at the last minute! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I bet very few, if any, deliberately stayed on the surface to go toe to toe, especially since it would be pretty much guarenteed that more A/C would be showing up real soon.

I think the enemy A/C in this "Game" need to be a little more deadly (or the Flak guns a little less stabilized) and you'll see fewer people opting for the "Arcade" option in seas, rough or otherwise.

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie901:
Next thing you know the Devs might actually listen to these cry babies and give us, "Call of Duty", on the water, where we can sink the entire Brittish Navy in one sitting with our FPS deck gun...... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I completely agree!

[hatman1967]

Not sure how many went toe to toe, but I live in Canada and there used to be a school named "David Hornell" that was named after a pilot that fought a duel with a uboat and lost.

Dano

[KiwiVenge]

Very well stated.
I don't mind seeing the posts though, I just don't read them.

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiwiVenge:
I don't mind seeing the posts though, I just don't read them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just worry that the developers will take them more seriously than they deserve.

[Kpt_Zig]

Doenitz gave strict orders to U-Boot commanders that they were to engage a/c wherever possible, and provided ever stronger AA armament for that purpose. When it was realised how many U-Boots were being lost as a result he rescinded the order.

[KiwiVenge]

I mentioned somewhere before that I think the reason people do not like it the way it is resides in the fact they can not even try. I guess in a perfect world the game would let you man your guns but make it harder and harder to hit anything as the wind increases.

[pmckelvy]

Thankyou, having fired a gun (50 cal and 25mm) off a bobbing ship I agree that in anything more the FAC it is not easy. Even in flat seas it is much more difficult than land. These people that are whining sound like they ran multiple combat patrols in WWII. Just because you nail people in WWIIOL or Enigma doesn't make you a subject matter expert. So enjoy some realism and that will make succeses even more enjoyable.

mac

[Frumpkis]

I agree with all the historical realism posts, but any simulation also has to pass the common sense test, to satisfy the majority of users.

I've owned both power and sailboats, and I'm certified for bareboat charter sail up to 50'. I've lived on or near the water all my life. That's my "common sense" basis.

Yes, a U-boat has very low draft, but if the weather report is showing 7kt winds and the seas are almost smooth and the decks are not awash... in fact they're high and dry... it's natural to ask "why can't I man my deck guns or AA?" That's a commonsense question, given the way the game is representing the outside world.

They need to either change the external graphics (showing obvious dangerous spray over the deck) or else change the minimum windspeed for manning the guns. That would eliminate most of the complaints. Make the external graphics fit what you're allowed, or not allowed, to do in the simulation.

<edit addition> Either that, or remove the auto-stabilize on the guns. But I think making the weather conditions seem obviously "wrong" for a surface gun attack is more elegant, and would upset fewer players.

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Frumpkis:
I agree with all the historical realism posts, but any simulation also has to pass the common sense test, to satisfy the majority of users. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The first job of a SIMULATION is to simulate. That's why simulation enthusiasts buy simulators. It should not be our problem that some Doom enthusiasts have blown in here, excited by the pretty graphics, but annoyed by the fact that the simulation stops them from blowing stuff up because of 'mere realism issues'.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I've owned both power and sailboats, and I'm certified for bareboat charter sail up to 50'. I've lived on or near the water all my life. That's my "common sense" basis. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, 'common sense' only makes actual sense if it has a relevant basis from which to start. Gut instinct might appear at first glance to be 'common sense', but it can easily lead one to assume that what is desirable is realistic. If we want to find the facts, we have to find valid and relevant sources if we're talking about U-Boat deck guns. As far as I can tell, those sources ALL say that deck guns were all but useless in anything but calm seas. I have yet to see any sources that say that manning deck guns was easy, that it wasn't dangerous even in mild weather, or even that deck guns were generally useful as a method of sinking ships.

In the game as it currently stands, I've sunk more shipping with the deck gun in one of my careers than any real U-Boat commander. My common sense tells me that that means that the deck gun is overpowered and/or too easy to use AS IT IS. Making it even easier to use will turn a weapon that's already 'uber' into a huge game imbalance. If anything, the deck gun needs a good old fashioned 'nerf'.

[Charlie901]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Frumpkis:
I agree with all the historical realism posts, but any simulation also has to pass the common sense test, to satisfy the majority of users.

I've owned both power and sailboats, and I'm certified for bareboat charter sail up to 50'. I've lived on or near the water all my life. That's my "common sense" basis.

Yes, a U-boat has very low draft, but if the weather report is showing 7kt winds and the seas are almost smooth and the decks are not awash... in fact they're high and dry... it's natural to ask "why can't I man my deck guns or AA?" That's a commonsense question, given the way the game is representing the outside world.

They need to either change the external graphics (showing obvious dangerous spray over the deck) or else change the minimum windspeed for manning the guns. That would eliminate most of the complaints. Make the external graphics fit what you're allowed, or not allowed, to do in the simulation.

<edit addition> Either that, or remove the auto-stabilize on the guns. But I think making the weather conditions seem obviously "wrong" for a surface gun attack is more elegant, and would upset fewer players. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Well, I agree with reducing the stabilization to provide an alternative to this issue.

Increasing the minimum windspeed neccessary to man the guns is not a realistic option IMHO. The alternative to adding graphics to visually show that it would be extremely difficult to man the guns in the current cionditions might not be possible either.

However, I don't think this game was coded to show increased wash over/spray effects for 7kt winds. There apparently is a limitation to the amout of weather effects on the sea surface that could be moddelled. Maybe in SH4 we could see different sea surface effects for every 10kt increase in wind speed.

But face it! The current Deck Gun alone is a major flaw to game balance at this point. Now add in the ability to man it even in "realistic", unfavorable conditions and this problem only gets worse.

Cause as it is now, I can easily take out a single destroyer with my lone deck gun before he can even do moderate damage to my sub. Add in the ability to man the Flak guns as stated above and there will be no reason to even submerge when travelling through the English channel post 1943.

How fun and realistic would this "Uber" gunning be then? Maybe for the fast twitched, juke and jerk, console, FPS crowd, which this game was not designed for anyway.


If it's a choice between "Arcade Mode" to man the guns in winds over 7kts or "Realism", I opt for realism every time, sorry. Everyone is relying too much on the graphical representation of the sea surface cause we have become an eye-candy generation. Just listen to your weather eports and you'll learn to love the immersion.

This is not "United Offensive" where you can take on the whole German Luftwaffe with your ball turrent.

I just hope the Devs don't listen to all the crying about this and try to make this game the next console shooter! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

[Frumpkis]

Beeryus and Charlie901...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not for making the deck guns easier. I'm a very longtime fan of hardcore simulations, and yes, it SHOULD be something you can only use once in a while.

I'm talking about the very obvious dissonance between what they're showing in the external views, and what you're allowed to do in the simulation. Others who have spent time on the water, in boats of varying sizes, have commented on this also... it's not just me.

Maybe the real problem is the way it's tied to wind speed. Wind speed and wave height are not always correlated. You can have HUGE waves with very little wind, when the fetch is long enough and you're feeling the after-effects of a distant storm. Conversely, you can have relatively high wind and calm seas, when the waves haven't had time to develop yet. In a truly realistic simulation, it shouldn't be the wind, per se, that restricts deck gun use.

I just think it's dumb to show calm water, and dry decks, and a non-pitching boat.... and then tell the player that they can't use the guns. It just doesn't look or feel right (IMO).

There must be a way to fix this, while still preserving the historical difficulty. Maybe the only solution *is* including pitching on the guns, to make shooting more difficult?

[Johnny_JG2]

In my 14 patrols, I've sunk more tonnage with my deck gun than probably all the Uboats in WW2 combined.

If we had more opportunities to use it, it would be even more ridiculous.

[jtc120880]

Note however, wind is stated as 7m/s, NOT 7kt. A 7m/s wind translates VERY roughly (ie very rounded numbers) to 21 feet/second = 1261 f/min = 75600 f/hour = 12 nm/hour (6000f/2000yd mile). Of course if you using land miles it's more like 15mph. Also I rounded a meter to 3 foot even, so it's actually higher than my numbers by some margin of about a .2 f/s error to begin with compounded through the calculations.

So when the nav says wind speed 7 (and actually says, "m/s"), he ain't talking a pleasant 7 knot breeze.

D.E.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Frumpkis:
but if the weather report is showing 7kt winds <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[VonGeezer]

I find it funny that you can't man the guns in "bad weather", when on my last patrol just east of Scapa Flow the waves were so bad that at times my bridge crew was under 10 feet of water (still looking through binoculars no less).

On the plus side I sank a huge cargo ship there (a C3, 7901 tons). Had to keep "Locking View" as between the fog and 30 foot waves I couldn't even see it 500 from yards away (which is kinda cheating I think).

[Frederf220]

The question is then. If the current deck gun is so successful in game and not in real life, what can be done to the simulation to make the game more resemble real life?

Currently it seems (although prove me wrong if you can) that:

1. The game doesn't simulate correctly the conditions at which crewing the deck is possible. Erring on the side of not allowing you to crew it when you could.

2. The game is missing some factors which overinflate the effectiveness of the gun.

This is what it seems like to me.

Also, whether manning the deck gun/ flak gun in any condition is a good idea, or in line with orders and practices historically is IRRELEVANT to and has no place in this discussion.

That's akin to saying "the game won't let me fire torpedos at tug boats." "well that's good because it would be a bad idea/against orders." The fact you should be able to do that, but couldn't, is clearly wrong regardless of how advisable it is.

To the original poster, do not be mad at people who raise issues, they aren't the problem. Would you make a page about "Sick of all these people complaining about CTDs."? That'd be silly, the people taking issue with flaws in the game isn't some unholy evil, the issue itself is.

Without change to the game, the only answer I'll accept is: The sea state generated by 7m/s winds did/does render the deckgun and any flak guns either 1. physically impossible to operate and/or 2. so dreadfully impractical as to constitute a complete futillity and/or there would be a considerable risk concerning losing people over the side.

Answers I will not accept:

It's against historical orders
It's not the most effective action to take
It would be very inaccurate

Because these are irrelevent to the simulation of possibilities.

[hatman1967]

Sounds to me that the only way to satisfy everyone is to make this a realism option.

[Frumpkis]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jtc120880:
Note however, wind is stated as 7m/s, NOT 7kt. A 7m/s wind translates VERY roughly (ie very rounded numbers) to 21 feet/second = 1261 f/min = 75600 f/hour = 12 nm/hour (6000f/2000yd mile). Of course if you using land miles it's more like 15mph. Also I rounded a meter to 3 foot even, so it's actually higher than my numbers by some margin of about a .2 f/s error to begin with compounded through the calculations.

So when the nav says wind speed 7 (and actually says, "m/s"), he ain't talking a pleasant 7 knot breeze. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, you're right... good catch.

However, I have sailed 50'+ fiberglass sailboats in a wind like that, and it's no big deal. No problem holding binoculars on deck, for example. And that's a MUCH less stable platform than a steel type VII U-boat displacing over 700 tons, and riding low in the water, not affected by windage!!! That should be a much more stable platform.

One more time... they need to model waves, not wind, and make that be the limiting factor.

[Frederf220]

Where when you tick it full real you can actually use the gun? If you suggest it's real now and the "arcade" setting would be more lax, listen, I don't want to suffer some penalty in realism % because on full real it makes the deck gun far too strict (for ex.)

There's clearly a right answer to this, either it's too lenient, too lax, or just right. To be proven/argued sucessfully hopefully so it can be made correct and everyone accepts it as correct.

[jpinard]

So exactly what's the problem with them giving us a switch? NONE.

[Lovo_Kasistan]

You've got to love the gun discussion...
http://www.nevtron.si/borderline/deadhors.gif

[Frederf220]

How about having a lesser realism percentage means less renoun per ton? That's a problem.

What about on 100% real servers where one would be subject to perhaps an overly strict deck gun requirement sea state uneccesarily? That's a problem.

What about bragging rights lost by playing less than 100%, when 100% actually subjects you to unreal restraints? That's a problem.

THREE.

**This assumes the game models deck/flak useage requirements in sea state too strictly. This is only a basis for argument. Satisfactory proof for too lax or to strict or just right has yet to be made.

[Caseck73]

I feel that the gun is also too restrictive... I was watching and my deck was NOT awash in 7 m/s winds/waves. I should have been able to use the gun.

BUT!!!

The gun was only useful early in the war before merchies started carrying guns themselves... The idea of outshooting a much larger, higher, dryer merchant, who many times was mounting a similar sized or larger gun, is a bit outlandish. I have no problem with the guns, especially the flak guns being manned in accordance with the decks being awash.

(Especially the flak guns which were higher and dryer anyway. Seperate conditions for the different guns!)

But the Merchies are unrealistically poor shots from a more stable platform. And the ROF of the gun should depend on weather too. In heavier weather, reload times should be terrible! (The gun loads way too fast as it is.)

A determined crew should be able to gun in poorer weather, but their effectiveness MUST suffer accordingly!

And separate conditions for tower flak positions.

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Frederf220:
The question is then. If the current deck gun is so successful in game and not in real life, what can be done to the simulation to make the game more resemble real life? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the best way to do it would be to change two things:

1. Make the deck gun responsive to any sort of pitching or rolling of the boat, just like the periscope is. Currently it stays as solid as a rock, which is part of the reason why we can get so much tonnage with it.

2. Make the deck gun controls very unresponsive - make it take a lot of mouse input to move the deck gun a little bit, so that it's very hard to overcome the action of the pitching and rolling of the boat, even in fairly light swells. You could also institute a delay of a split second between hitting the fire button and the shell actually firing - that would make it even less accurate.

That would solve the problem, and you could open up the deck gun and have it be useable (but not useful) in any sea condition.

Thirdly, if the devs had time and resources to devote to it, make it so that using the deck gun in anything but calm seas sometimes causes wounds and/or death to the crewmembers who are manning it. In short, make it so that the deck gun is a liability - that's the reality, so it should be so in the sim.

[gabriel_cd]

I can't believe that so many people are defending the ridiculous deck gun situation!

The answer is clear:
A captain should have absolute power over his boat and crew. If you happend to give a suicidal order to your sailors then so be it. It should say, "Deck gun manned." and a second later "Man overboard.", if the storm is so bad!

You don't make it impossible to man the guns. You make it very hard to aim, very hard to reload and you make it a risk of losing sailors overboard.
It really is as simple as that and some people have already hit the nail on the head on this issue.

We're not talking about hitting a target at 5km range in a storm. Sure that's next to impossible. But to say goodbye to a disabled 10,000ton tanker, because apparently it is impossible to hit from 100m away? That's just not on, a blind, one armed gunner could hit that!

Happy hunting!

[Charlie901]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Frederf220:
The question is then. If the current deck gun is so successful in game and not in real life, what can be done to the simulation to make the game more resemble real life? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the best way to do it would be to change two things:

1. Make the deck gun responsive to any sort of pitching or rolling of the boat, just like the periscope is. Currently it stays as solid as a rock, which is part of the reason why we can get so much tonnage with it.

2. Make the deck gun controls very unresponsive - make it take a lot of mouse input to move the deck gun a little bit, so that it's very hard to overcome the action of the pitching and rolling of the boat, even in fairly light swells.

That would solve the problem, and you could open up the deck gun and have it be useable (but not useful) in any sea condition.

Thirdly, if the devs had time and resources to devote to it, make it so that using the deck gun in anything but calm seas causes wounds and/or death to the crewmembers who are manning it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Agree 100%

Remember we are blessed with a dynamic campaign, that includes dynamic weather, which affects your abilities to sink tonnage.
Just as the U-boat commanders of old had to deal with!

With the current wind restrictions on the deck gun, it allows us that element of dynamic variety, in each and every campaign mission.

For instance: One mission you might not have the weather to be able to use the deck/flak guns. The next mission you might be able to use them to your hearts content. Thus another factor to have to consider based on real, game world, conditions.

This is what's so realistic and immersive about this dynamic campaign. If you give the player less restrictions on Deck/Flak gun usage related to weather conditions than you also REMOVE some of the dynamicness of the game.

I like the fact that the weather limits your abilities and it changes each and every time you play. Otherwise, its's like giving us X-ray vision in storms/fog and torpedoes that work in any kind of seas.....boring if you ask me.

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gabriel_cd:
We're not talking about hitting a target at 5km range in a storm. Sure that's next to impossible. But to say goodbye to a disabled 10,000ton tanker, because apparently it is impossible to hit from 100m away? That's just not on, a blind, one armed gunner could hit that! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem is that with the deck gun in the game, it's easy to destroy a target 3000 yards away with a very small number of rounds because the thing is simply too accurate. Even WITH CURRENT DECK GUN RESTRICTIONS my boats are getting tonnage that by far outstrips even the best historical deck gun stats for entire flotillas. If the developers make the deck gun useable in higher wind conditions (which is what some people are demanding) we'll have a situation where it will be much more effective to use the deck gun than it will be to use a torpedo in ANY situation. The limit on deck gun usage is the only thing keeping the deck gun from totally ruining this simulation.

As you say, before they release the gun for use in all weathers, the developers MUST make the deck gun realistically inaccurate and hard to aim.

[Charlie901]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gabriel_cd:
We're not talking about hitting a target at 5km range in a storm. Sure that's next to impossible. But to say goodbye to a disabled 10,000ton tanker, because apparently it is impossible to hit from 100m away? That's just not on, a blind, one armed gunner could hit that! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem is that with the deck gun in the game, it's easy to destroy a target 3000 yards away with a very small number of rounds because the thing is simply too accurate. If the developers make it useable in higher wind conditions we'll have a situation where it will be much more effective to use the deck gun than it will be to use a torpedo in ANY situation. The limit on deck gun usage is the only thing keeping the deck gun from totally ruining this simulation. Before they release the gun for use in all weathers, the developers MUST make the deck gun realistically inaccurate and hard to aim. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Exactly! As already stated I can outgun any single destroyer easy at 1000+ meters....LOL!
Putting a torpedo into him when he's charging straight down on me is a much more impossible task.



I think we better give it up Beer. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

We're trying to fight the new Sub-Doom 3, FPS crowd, that want to turn this sim into the next version of Quake 5!

Comm'on I just wanna blow ships up with my rocket propelled grenade launcher already. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie901:
We're trying to fight the new Sub-Doom 3, FPS crowd, that want to turn this sim into the next version of Quake 5!

Comm'on I just wanna blow ships up with my rocket propelled grenade launcher already. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe, yeah.

The thing is, the Doom crowd have already managed to get the developers to reduce the stormyness of the Atlantic in the latest patch. I mean it's the ATLANTIC - only the stormiest sea on the entire planet, yet people who don't know a d@mned thing about weather in the Atlantic (who have probably never even been on a ship on the ocean) complained and the developers caved in. I fear if this goes on, the game will indeed be nerfed so badly that we'll be sailing in perpetual calm to moderate seas and the deck gun will be so effective that we'll never have to use our torpedoes again.

[Starrynites]

Maybe once the mod makers start doing there thing we will have the option to play realistic or blaster style

[Beeryus]

Speaking of that, does anyone know how long it actually took to reload a deck gun? Maybe I'll see if I can tweak the reload times a bit.

[Frederf220]

Very happy with the discussion now. Yes make it hard to use, inaccurate and up the load times (especially in bad weather), while simultaneously letting you attempt it in more situations!

More deck gun ammo in the water and not in the ships and also less frustrated captains.

[Mongoose6T7]

I am not even going to argue this issue anymore. But as for being sick of repeated themes in threads, get the hell over it! Don't open the thread and find something worth contributing to.

[Airhead-CDF]

Yet I can stand in the conning tower and be drowned by one freakwave after the other (which is all waves that exist in this game, with storms that last a month on every patrol) but I cant touch that AA gun an arms length away.
I dont care if I cant hit anything with it, I want my men to man it, even if they do get washed overboard (which they wont, since their feet is glued to the boat).

[Dominicrigg]

Ok i read the first page but not the second so apologies if this has been said already but its not about waves washing over the deck.

Infact the deck gun could (and can in game) be fired when water is washing over the deck. Its about the rocking of the boat. When wind is over 7 it makes the boat rock and realistically it is impossible to aim well, yes you could man the gun, yes you could get on deck without being washed over but no you couldnt hit jack ****.

A good way to see this for those who talk about common sense (i have said this before) is to go to the gun view, zoom twice with tab, and then press delete on the number pad to see the barrel alone. Now watch how much the barral is rising and falling with the waves, and imagine shooting at anything with a rolling gun.

Its fine as it is, it is probably even correct in the damage model since some captains sunk up to 6 ships in one patrol with the deck gun, the only problem is most captains didnt bother with it because as someone said earlier it had to be waterproofed and unwaterproofed before firing, and it was easier and safer to just fire torps.

Of the coast of America when they refused to be learn the British lessons for whatever reason and refused convoys deck guns came into their own and sunk a lot of ships. It is a powerfull weapon, and you will get into trouble trying to use it late war.

But i agree with Beeryus at the moment you can get manic tonnage with the deck gun, i dont know what the fix should be though other then just not using it or making it take 10 minutes to limber unlimber (That would make us more prone to air retaliation from radio requests for backup but would annoy the pro guns lobby more http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

[bweiss]

Snipers!

Didn't they have snipers? Ahem, ah, man the yard arm, full tilt ahead, prepare to bored, no wait we're already bored, prepare to border the blighters, snipers man your stations. Fire at the orafacers.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif "Chief, get the mess crew ready to replace those washed overbored by the 12 foot waves." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[AnalysisMan]

What you guys state above in regards to what can be done to the deck gun to make it harder to hit something is all fine and dandy - refering to Beeryus's post. It all sounds great and it seems it will add to the realism AND fun.

It's just wrong not to let us 'try' to use it. I'm sure somewhere in the past some captain persuaded some crew to try and see if they can finish off something with the gun. What ever...

It's still my prorogative to decide if I want to try and hit a crippled merchant on the waterline in a 7 or 8 m/s wind. If after the 5th shell see that I can't hit it even at 700 meters, then to bad, I'll use my last torpedo. If I can, I still have another torpedo left.

It's about the economics of my ammunition stores, not about tonnage or about playing FPS.

[Grisu1968]

Well, if I'm not allowed to man the AAA at 7m/s winds, why can PT boats under the same condition hit my conning tower with there guns???
Isn't that a much less stable gun platform?

And besides: I'm the captain! If I tell my guys to man the eightyeight in 7 m/s winds they shall do.
How about something like this:
- more than n1 m/s -> no manning of deck gun allowed
- more than n2 m/s no manning of AAA allowed

The values for n1 and n2 at the developers choice.
Less than n1/n2 winds -> man it, but there's a chance (the stronger the winds, the higher the chance) that someone manning the gun is washed away. The first occasion someone looses an officer or petty officer with qualifications, many medals i.e. very competent, he will think of the situation twice before telling them to man battle station on deck.

[stevenwhiting]

I'm the captain. I should decide if they man it or not. And I'll say again. When wind speeds are only 7kts and there was viturally NO wash on deck, the flak guns were in the tower. WHY can't I man the deckguns?

Seems these boys did ok, look at the wash on deck.
http://uboat.net/photos/guns2.jpg

EDIT:Around here somewhere someone also posted a movie of real life footage of a Uboat using its gun in a mild storm.

So your sick of us moaning about it, saying its that way 'cause its realistic. Then go back in time and tell that to that uboat crew in the pic above and in the movie clip.

I find me being the captain and ME deciding whether or not to risk men on the deck gun in a storm or mild storm is more realistic don't ya think.

[GT182]

Let the gun crew shoot at a target, not you, and you'll see they are not all that accurate. When the screen pops up that target has been sighted and asks you what to do, select "Engage Target". Ususally the deck gun is used if you're on the surface. The AI gun crew sure can waste shells, I've seen it happen 3 times with different cargo ships we were attacking.

Just don't try it on a Destroyer with AI... you'll be dog meat in a very short time. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

[Dominicrigg]

Sorry to say but that picture you have shown is not rough weather. Look at the waves and you will see they are probably less then the 6 or 5 waves in game.

This video at UBoat net is amazing, it shows you the power of the deck gun vs enemy shipping, and also shows you the innacuracy in just slightly high seas, as they miss about 3 times in the video!!! Check out out and look at the otehrs too.

http://uboat.net/special/videos/files/on_board.mov

[Teurastaja_Gleb]

Here's my two cents.

Based on my experience on career (5 patrols, 140 000 tons, 100% realism) i'd say something has to be done to the deck gun. 3/5 patrol's i've been unable to use the deck gun because weather, resulting in seemingly realistic tonnage (about 4 to 5 ships per patrol).

On the two consecutive patrols (within 1,5 months) with glass seas i sunk 90 000 tons with deck gun. If the current trend continues, i will have sunk 1/5 the entire Tommy production of single year to the end of â´40, and Rudell won't be the only one with golden Knights Cross. Realistic? When even the greatest ace got 500 000 tons during his career?

The proposition to make the targeting sight of gun unstable like periscope sounds VERY good. About when you can really man the gun, i don't say if it should be changed. But:

1. No commander would order his men to man the gun when it would put them in NEEDLESS danger(hitting with gun in hard conditions with probability of slim to none with risk of losing lives, or getting wounded), IF he isn't a total sociopath.

2. No human is a robot that can take any order given. Would YOU go on the deck in rough seas for a 2000 ton freighter? When you know you'll be washed overboard? When you know it is impossible to hit anything?

3. Giving such orders would destroy morale rapidly - even cause mutiny.

4. Would most likely result in a court martial, discharge etc.

Someone writed that it's impossible to miss a target 100 meters long from 500 meters. If the boat is in vertical movement because of the waves the length would not be an issue. I'd claim the issue is to hit 20-30 meter high target from 500 meters. And that includes the mast, so there isn't actually much surface to hit there (about 10 to 15 meters at best?).

Anyone who has ever practiced shooting knows that aim doesn't have to change but few degrees and the bullet will be off by meters if the target is say... 100 meters away.

But hey... what do i know about anything. Make your own conclusions. I'd allmost like to put here a quote about paralympics and arguing in internet, but i'm too nice to do it.

[Dominicrigg]

I cant believe you have sunk 90,000 tons with the deck gun, that would be 20+ ships, there is not enough ammo for this.

Its possible to sink about 6 ships with it. And probably less if they are 10,000 tonners. Are you sure about this amount? The most i have got is about 6 which matches the amount sunk of the coast of america when escorts and cover was none existant (the turkey shoot)

[TheFastFreddie]

I sunk 9 with my deck gun for 48k in my current patrol and have enough ammo for 2 more big ones. They need to leave the weather alone and make the deck gun sway with the ship. You shouldn't be able to run at flank and hit a thing.

[Beeryus]

I estimate you could easily get 7 to 10 ships with the deck gun as it currently is. I've sunk 4 ships with it on one patrol and I had plenty of ammo left afterwards. If you had calm seas and if you could find the really big merchants I think you could probably get close to 100K on one patrol with the deck gun alone. That's how unrealistically 'uber' it is.

It's not only the gun accuracy that's off. It's the effectiveness of the shells, the reload time, etc. Basically, the deck gun is in all respects wrongly modelled. Its effectiveness needs to be severely toned down so that its usefulness mirrors the reality.

[alanschu]

Am I the only one who's deck IS awash at 7m/s

I often get splashed in 5 m/s water too.

[Bubblehead1948]

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Put this armchair speculation to bed. I've been on a ship a lot heavier than a sub during a tropical storm that had the same kinds of swells seen in the North Atlantic. They didn't even want us on the weather decks, let alone an open gun mount.

The idea of trying to hit anything smaller than a coastline using a 5in gun with line of sight optics, no fire control, and no servo controls is absurd. Our people had enough trouble trying to hit a towed target at 2000 yds in a calm sea.

We're talking 1939-1945 here. Even analog computer controled firing was a fairly rare commodity on many surface ships before 1942.

Get beyond it.

[Horvald]

yeah, I seem to have a bug everytime I use the deck gun it says I cant man it in a storm and the winds are only 6 and my crew....... jk http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif dont really use it on the IXD2 in 43.

[Bubblehead1948]

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Here's the thing: The deck gun is an excellent alternative in a night action against a lone freight; provided the sea is calm. But dont expect superhuman capabilities of a gun crew under less than decent conditions. Particularly with this old technology.

[Teurastaja_Gleb]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dominicrigg:
I cant believe you have sunk 90,000 tons with the deck gun, that would be 20+ ships, there is not enough ammo for this.

Its possible to sink about 6 ships with it. And probably less if they are 10,000 tonners. Are you sure about this amount? The most i have got is about 6 which matches the amount sunk of the coast of america when escorts and cover was none existant (the turkey shoot) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You most likely misunderstood my post, or i wrote it poorly. I meant total of 90 tons from two patrols, average of 45 tons each patrol.
VIIB holds 200 shells, which can sink ATLEAST 6 to 7 big ships (+6000 tons). Or greater amount of smaller ones. As you stated yourself. 7 big ships = +40 tons.

If you target the deck and have some luck, you can sink more. I've had lucky shots few times where C2/C3:s cargo caught big fires after about dozen shells. Entire deck burned about a 30 - 60 seconds, and the ship blew up when fire finally reached the fuel tanks.

[GT182]

If you returned to base then your shell supply is restocked, just as your torpedos are. So I think you misunderstood what he said Dominicrigg.

[reumatiib]

Perhaps SH3 Dev guys should let them man the gun in rough sea and make the gun bounce all around and have the gunners wash over board. That might fix the complaints.

[Frederf220]

I would imagine with increasing seas, your accuracy would go to pot before one is physically unable to man the thing. Right?

Well, at the "limit" in game, I'm still very able to be accurate with the gun at very long ranges. If this is unrealistic it should be adjusted.

So I ask why in 8m/s seas I'm not allowed to use the gun because it was still working just fine in 7m/s seas, and it's going to get very innacurate BEFORE the physical cutoff point.

Calm Seas - accurate
7m/s Seas - less accurate
8m/s Seas - slightly less accurate again
[H]m/s Seas - accuracy approaches zero
[J]m/s Seas - weapon is unable to be physically manned

Where J > H > 8.

Can you see the logical progression? Unless intuition is totally off, accuracy should go to pot in milder seas before the sea state the gun is considered unmannable.

As it stands now, accuracy is still going strong at 7m/s.

I'm all for making the deck gun not uber, but not using this odd, unjustified limit.

[LOSTMYMOJO]

I say let them man the deck guns and with every wave wash the crew overboard, after loosing a couple guys no one will want to man the guns in rough seas.

[dquock]

I'm really not going to argue one way or the other re: the deck gun issue. I only believe that bringing in "real life" arguments can only go so far. Sure it adds weight to an argument, but the problem is that the game itself only goes so far with consequences of the actions. No matter what decisions we make in the game, at the end of the day we shut off our computer and go to sleep. At worst, we lose a career and have to start over again.

Sure historically there were fewer deck gun kills. A submarine's largest advantage is stealth and the ability to force an attacker to worry in 3 dimensions. (A ship on the surface is a two-dimensional problem. Depth adds a third dimension to it.) Sitting on the surface lobbing shells negates all of it. A sub is definitely more vulnerable and the captains knew it. Thus, I would imagine, the torpedo would be the primary weapon. Sure they're trying to maximize their tonnage, but they evaluate the risks much more carefully because their lives are on the line.

People say they are willing to risk men being washed overboard. That's fine from a gaming perspective, but keep in mind that's less acceptable when you have to look at your crew in the eye after sending Fritz to the depths because you wanted to save a torpedo. I'm sure doing that frivolously would result in dismissal or, worse yet, a knife in the back. I would say 90+% of us really don't have any sort of "bond" with our crew. They are just little pixels that are designed to do our bidding.

The fact of the matter is that players in the simulation genre will fall somewhere between the hard-core sim buff and the casual gamer. The sim buff will run at the highest realism settings and treat each encouter as if their lives were on the line. The gamer just wants to blow stuff up, takes high risks, and doesn't worry if he has to restart. We all fall somewhere between either ends. The popular games are the ones that can appeal to both crowds.

I think because of the philosophical differences between how we approach the game means that there will never really be an agreement between them all. We can cite historical data, real-life scenarios, personal preference, etc, but it boils down to the fact that we all view this product differently.

Just my (long and rambling) thoughts. =) I think everyone has good points and I don't mean to annoy anyone. =)

[Dominicrigg]

Ahh sorry i misread or whatever, yes i agree 90 would be poss in two patrols.

I dont think the deck gun is wrong though, it IS a powerfull weapon, and would have no problem sending this amounts of ships to the bottom. The problem lies in the amount of lone contacts you get.

The reason it wasnt used in real life so much was because of the convoy system or the danger of air attack meaning surface action was too dangerous. A U-boat COULD sink 6 or more ships with its deck gun in one patrol. However they rarely ran into that many lone ships. (One captian near america did and claimed 6 or more kills with his cannon).

The problem is with the single contacts lighting up on the map, if you ignore these (as i just did on my last 2 patrols) you get a much more realistic score overall, and get much fewer kills (if any) with the deck gun, because you mainly fight convoys you are vectored into, and lone ships are only "bumped into" rarely. As it should be.

Also there is innacuracy on the deck gun in higher seas, some shots will sail wildly over at long range. Watch the barral rising and falling and see how it affects shots. The game just makes sure the sea is fairly calm when you fire so its not that noticable.

It shows there is the potential there to allow rougher manning of the gun though, which could be amusing for people complaining.


Which config part do you change to kill off the single contacts?

[Lassen]

deck gun is too uber in game. This is no word of a lie, but I took out 3 destroyers and 7 cargo ships in a convoy only last night. Just kept hitting the destroyer with High Explosives and they sank fast.

[Teddy Bar]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Teurastaja_Gleb:
Here's my two cents.

Based on my experience on career (5 patrols, 140 000 tons, 100% realism) i'd say something has to be done to the deck gun. 3/5 patrol's i've been unable to use the deck gun because weather, resulting in seemingly realistic tonnage (about 4 to 5 ships per patrol).

On the two consecutive patrols (within 1,5 months) with glass seas i sunk 90 000 tons with deck gun. If the current trend continues, i will have sunk 1/5 the entire Tommy production of single year to the end of â´40, and Rudell won't be the only one with golden Knights Cross. Realistic? When even the greatest ace got 500 000 tons during his career?

The proposition to make the targeting sight of gun unstable like periscope sounds VERY good. About when you can really man the gun, i don't say if it should be changed. But:

1. No commander would order his men to man the gun when it would put them in NEEDLESS danger(hitting with gun in hard conditions with probability of slim to none with risk of losing lives, or getting wounded), IF he isn't a total sociopath.

2. No human is a robot that can take any order given. Would YOU go on the deck in rough seas for a 2000 ton freighter? When you know you'll be washed overboard? When you know it is impossible to hit anything?

3. Giving such orders would destroy morale rapidly - even cause mutiny.

4. Would most likely result in a court martial, discharge etc.

Someone writed that it's impossible to miss a target 100 meters long from 500 meters. If the boat is in vertical movement because of the waves the length would not be an issue. I'd claim the issue is to hit 20-30 meter high target from 500 meters. And that includes the mast, so there isn't actually much surface to hit there (about 10 to 15 meters at best?).

Anyone who has ever practiced shooting knows that aim doesn't have to change but few degrees and the bullet will be off by meters if the target is say... 100 meters away.

But hey... what do i know about anything. Make your own conclusions. I'd allmost like to put here a quote about paralympics and arguing in internet, but i'm too nice to do it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The problem is that the AI will not run away from you and with a deck gun it becomes a turkey shoot. If the AI actually ran away as soon as it saw you it would be great.

The other issue is that the deck gun is way overpowered.

I also think that the use of the deck gun is too restricted.

[Johnny_JG2]

You guys are friggin nuts.

I used to be on a 4500 ton submarine, and I'm telling you that it is very unstable on the surface. NOONE would EVER get off the sail and even attempt to walk on the deck in anything but the most calm seas.

You guys that think that since you are the captain, you could order your men to go stand on the deck unprotected from the seas are fooling yourselves! No crewman is gonna go out there on the deck and risk going overboard. You can disobey "unlawful" orders, you know. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

We get WAY WAY WAY too much tonnage as it is with the deck gun.

[GT182]

Likr I said before ... let your AI deck gun crew do the shooting. You'll see that they don't hit with every shot like you do. So if you want realism.... keep yer fingers off the trigger.

Remember one thing....this is ONLY A Game and you're not going to get FULL realism out of it. If that's what you want then go build one if you can. If you succeed, we'll buy it. But don't cry for what you want that they can't deliver.

I just wish the whiners would just play the d*mn thing and enjoy it for what it's worth. Sheeesh, you're driving the rest of us nuts. The Devs are trying to fix things, guys are making mods and you want more F'in realism..... THEN GO JOIN THE SILENT SERVICE. You'll get all the realism you can handle. Other than that, help people out that are having problems running the game, and trying to successfully play it. If SHIII was perfect, I bet there'd still be whines about something.

"You can't always get what you want." That's life and nothing can change it.

Sorry for the rant, but all this bellyachin gets old fast.

[Teurastaja_Gleb]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dominicrigg:
Ahh sorry i misread or whatever, yes i agree 90 would be poss in two patrols.

I dont think the deck gun is wrong though, it IS a powerfull weapon, and would have no problem sending this amounts of ships to the bottom. The problem lies in the amount of lone contacts you get.

The reason it wasnt used in real life so much was because of the convoy system or the danger of air attack meaning surface action was too dangerous. A U-boat COULD sink 6 or more ships with its deck gun in one patrol. However they rarely ran into that many lone ships. (One captian near america did and claimed 6 or more kills with his cannon).

The problem is with the single contacts lighting up on the map, if you ignore these (as i just did on my last 2 patrols) you get a much more realistic score overall, and get much fewer kills (if any) with the deck gun, because you mainly fight convoys you are vectored into, and lone ships are only "bumped into" rarely. As it should be.

Also there is innacuracy on the deck gun in higher seas, some shots will sail wildly over at long range. Watch the barral rising and falling and see how it affects shots. The game just makes sure the sea is fairly calm when you fire so its not that noticable.

It shows there is the potential there to allow rougher manning of the gun though, which could be amusing for people complaining.


Which config part do you change to kill off the single contacts? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually you are quite right. Atleast i think so. In right conditions the deck gun is, and should be powerful weapon - inaccurate tho.

But i'm encountering insane amounts of lone ships early 1940's in my campaing. My best record is 6 ships in 8 hours patrolling 80 - 150 km off English west coast along line Dover - Southend - Hartpool.

Should there be so many lone ships around? Or did the Allies realize effectiveness of convoy system much later? Anyway, something is wrong. Either there are too many lone ships or the gun is way too accurate (still want the swaying).

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GT182:
Likr I said before ... let your AI deck gun crew do the shooting. You'll see that they don't hit with every shot like you do. So if you want realism.... keep yer fingers off the trigger. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I already do. It doesn't help.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Remember one thing....this is ONLY A Game and you're not going to get FULL realism out of it. If that's what you want then go build one if you can. If you succeed, we'll buy it. But don't cry for what you want that they can't deliver. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. This is a simulation, and it can be adjusted. To say that they can't tweak the deck gun, and to say that if I want it tweaked I should spend three years developing my own game rather than simply getting the developers to tweak one that already exists - well, that's ludicrous

You're saying that building a game from scratch is more efficient than asking someone to change a couple of numbers in a file. I mean how crazy can you get? It's like saying that if I want to buy a can of coke I should make my own bottling factory. It's just ridiculous.

[Taurusman75]

"bounch of noobs, trying to shoot at ships past 1000m in anything but surf like glass....Jeeeezzz! "

We then assume you are a U-boat ace that served in WWII "charlie901"?...and live to tell the tale? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

[Beeryus]

Let's see if I can finally put the final nail in the coffin of the folks who are saying that the deck gun should be useable at higher sea states:

Today I was lucky enough to find my boat at exactly the cut-off wind speed for deck gun usage - 6m/s and you can use it, 7m/s and you can't. I took some screenshots, just to show how the sea can be at 7m/s or about 15 knots. I was fully surfaced and stationary at the time - not surfacing, not diving, but steady at full surface. Check the dials if you don't believe me - 5m depth - that's as surfaced as you can get. All pictures were taken at 12:16 game time. These images are compressed so that I could get them up on Photobucket.com and so they would show up full size. If anyone accuses me of doctoring them, I have the originals - rest assured, these are genuine.

Now, sit down and enjoy:

Here is the boat with a little wash onto the deck. This might not have caused the deck gun crew much bother - slippery, but no casualties. Notice that the sea appears flat, calm, and even glassy-smooth:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/Beery/001.jpg

Here's a view of the boat as a large swell came up over the bow. Note that in all three pictures the weather report is there. For those who don't read German, it says "Clear sky, light mist, wind speed 7 metres per second." In other words, only just enough wind speed to stop you manning the deck gun:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/Beery/002.jpg

Now, finally, we get to the killer picture. Here we see a view from beside the boat under the water as a bigger wave washed over the deck. As you can see, there's about 3ft of water above the deck - the water is over the handrail. A wave like this would undoubtedly knock a deck crew all over the place, and they'd better be strapped down, otherwise they'll be overboard. A crewman could easily be killed or severely wounded if he was not tied to the gun:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/Beery/003.jpg

Now, what was it that people were saying about glassy seas and a 7m/s wind not being dangerous to a U-Boat gun crew?

[GT182]

Simulation or game, what ever, it's just nitpicking. If you want things different then make the mod for it. The one thing some don't realise it that the developers have only so much time to finish making a game, or "sim", and the the company that sponsers them wants it out on the market so they get their return on what they put in it.... pure and simple. If it was the case where a "sim" could be worked on till it was perfect so no one would whine about it, then it would take years to do. They don't have the time or inclination to do that.... it's all about the "money".

UBI isn't going to spend the money for "years of work" to get it that way. It all about economics, so we get what we get and that's it. If they want to patch it or not, it's their buisness. You can cry, beg or whine all you want and it's still their baby do do with as they please. You're lucky so far that they set SHIII up so it can be modded. With Forgotten Battles and Pacific Fighters that's not the case.... everthing is hard coded by Maddox Games so it can't be modded. Of course skins are the exception.

Whining isn't the way to address your concerns. There's a place to say what the bugs you find and the gripes you have so that they'll see them.

SHIII's developers aren't going to search thru every topic in these forums and read everything, it's got to be done the right way by everyone here, either by a forum they set up or an email. Once you learn to do that, then something might be done it time. The worst thing you can do is hound a subject and tell them what to do or not do. I can see them now... they're all sitting back laughing at you guys over this stuff. Relax, don't get pushy, enjoy what you have so far and let them work things out. It's like a 100,000 bees buzzing in their ears that they just want to swat away.

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GT182:
Simulation or game, what ever, it's just nitpicking. If you want things different then make the mod for it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am making a mod for it. I've already released one mod, and a second one is on its way. The fact is, wanting a simulation to do its job is not 'nitpicking'. If stuff needs adjusting it needs adjusting.

[Revolter_]

GT182,
I just wanted to say what a nice post you wrote.
And here's that wonderful picture that proofs that the deckguns were manned in more than calm seas after all. Of course we will now hear that this picture is a lie and that we shouldn't look at it because it's a forgery or such.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/Revolter/deckgun.jpg

[Charlie901]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Revolter_:
GT182,
I just wanted to say what a nice post you wrote.
And here's that wonderful picture that proofs that the deckguns were manned in more than calm seas after all. Of course we will now hear that this picture is a lie and that we shouldn't look at it because it's a forgery or such.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/Revolter/deckgun.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



WOW! I've never seen such a calm sea surface, there are virtually no waves at all in that picture.

I think I have bigger waves in my pool, when the wind blows........LOL

Actually the game has much bigger waves depicted, at 7m/s winds, than what is shown in that photo, so it looks like the game got it spot on!

I guess that's really how calm the sea has to be to be able to actually use the Deck gun, cause real photos don't lie!!!!!

Thanks for posting that great pic!

[Johnny_JG2]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Revolter_:
GT182,
I just wanted to say what a nice post you wrote.
And here's that wonderful picture that proofs that the deckguns were manned in more than calm seas after all. Of course we will now hear that this picture is a lie and that we shouldn't look at it because it's a forgery or such.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/Revolter/deckgun.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please tell us the wind speed in M/S that the picture was taken. The sea is pretty calm in that picture, and even so there is wash coming onto the front of the sub. I think you are attempting to show that they are in a tough sea state and water is all over the deck- but of course it isn't. Even so, the fact that there is some wash coming onto the deck shows that it doesn't take much sea state to do so.

Believe me- submarines aren't made to ride high and dry on the surface. I spent 4 years on a sub and have seen all types of sea states first hand as a lookout up in the sail.

You are friggin crazy if you think you have ANY insight into what it's like to be exposed to the sea on a boat built to sink. There is absolutely nothing to keep the water from washing across the deck on a submarine. ANY WATER on the deck is DANGEROUS. NOONE would even think of standing on the deck exposed to the sea - especially in a wartime situation.

Man-overboard drills were a friggin pain in the butt, and dangerous to anyone misfortunate enough to go over.

Keep reading your books and looking at the internet to gain your sailor's insight into the matter http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif - but you aren't gonna convince anyone who actually knows what's up.

Oh yeah, the guy who thinks that because he sails 50' sailboats, and therefore has insight into how submarines sail on the surface- is fooling himself, also. I've done lots and lots of sailing on all sorts of sailboats, myself. Heck, a 37' sailboat is more comfortable and stable on the surface than a 4500ton modern submarine! There is nothing worse than being on the surface in a submarine. They are very unstable and unpleasant on the surface. Please don't try and compare the two- you are really reaching there..

[Charlie901]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Johnny_JG2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Revolter_:
GT182,
I just wanted to say what a nice post you wrote.
And here's that wonderful picture that proofs that the deckguns were manned in more than calm seas after all. Of course we will now hear that this picture is a lie and that we shouldn't look at it because it's a forgery or such.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/Revolter/deckgun.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please tell us the wind speed in M/S that the picture was taken. The sea is pretty calm in that picture, and even so there is wash coming onto the front of the sub. I think you are attempting to show that they are in a tough sea state and water is all over the deck- but of course it isn't. Even so, the fact that there is some wash coming onto the deck shows that it doesn't take much sea state to do so.

Believe me- submarines aren't made to ride high and dry on the surface. I spent 4 years on a sub and have seen all types of sea states first hand as a lookout up in the sail.

You are friggin crazy if you think you have ANY insight into what it's like to be exposed to the sea on a boat built to sink. There is absolutely nothing to keep the water from washing across the deck on a submarine. ANY WATER on the deck is DANGEROUS. NOONE would even think of standing on the deck exposed to the sea - especially in a wartime situation.

Man-overboard drills were a friggin pain in the butt, and dangerous to anyone misfortunate enough to go over.

Keep reading your books and looking at the internet to gain your sailor's insight into the matter http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif - but you aren't gonna convince anyone who actually knows what's up.

Oh yeah, the guy who thinks that because he sails 50' sailboats, and therefore has insight into how submarines sail on the surface- is fooling himself, also. I've done lots and lots of sailing on all sorts of sailboats, myself. Heck, a 37' sailboat is more comfortable and stable on the surface than a 4500ton modern submarine! There is nothing worse than being on the surface in a submarine. They are very unstable and unpleasant on the surface. Please don't try and compare the two- you are really reaching there.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Great Post!

It's always nice to hear the "FACTS" straight from the horses mouth, rather than some others who sound like their speaking more from the horse's ****. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Revolter_]

No problem,

I'll just leave the forum community to make their own judgment in reference to this historical picture and what their actually seeing in this computer simulation in reference to being able to use the deckgun at this level of weather or less. Thank you.

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Revolter_:
And here's that wonderful picture that proofs that the deckguns were manned in more than calm seas after all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, but that picture shows LESS water coming onto the deck than my screenshots do. You're going to have to do MUCH better than that.

Actually, it's not worth bothering with you anymore. You have your agenda, everyone knows it's bogus. You're on ignore from now on. Byee!

[GT182]

Beeryus, quit be such a ********. Rev posted a REAL picture... not a screenshot.

Now, if you're smart, you ask around your hometown for someone that served on subs. Either during WII or not, doesn't matter as long as they were on subs with deckguns Ask THEM what the restrictions were. I'll do the same here as I have a vet just down the road that can tell me. I know he has a computer so I'll even see if he'll get on here and set the record straight. I can't promise he will but I'll try.

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GT182:
Beeryus, quit be such a ********. Rev posted a REAL picture... not a screenshot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said he posted a screenshot. It might serve you better if you read and understood my posts before you started calling me names. There is absolutely no need for flaming. Why is it that all of a sudden all the world's trolls are finding their way here. For God's sake try to control yourself. We're supposed to be having a respectful discussion here.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Now, if you're smart, you ask around your hometown for someone that served on subs. Either during WII or not, doesn't matter as long as they were on subs with deckguns Ask THEM what the restrictions were. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you're smart, you'll have noticed that four posts prior to your post, Johnny_JG2 posted. He served in subs for 4 years. It might have saved you some time if you had bothered to read his post before you started implying that I'm stupid and a butt head.

Congrats - you just got on my ignore list. It's an exclusive club, but recently it's getting more popular. I'm sure you'll enjoy the company - mindless trolls all.

[Charlie901]

I guess certain people don't like hearing, "the truth", from a "real" sub vet, so they have to find someone else to further their baseless arguments. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[HeibgesU999]

With the mountains in the background of that picture, it looks like it was taken in a port.

[BladeghostDev]

I will sum up this whole subject in 3 words
War is War.....Do or Die!

another u-boat movie 'enemy below just finished watchin that, classic'

[GT182]

I'm not doubting Johnny at all. I'm just going to talk to a WWII vet, or was a post WWII vet, that was on the old subs... not the nucs of today. I just want to hear from him about the deckguns.

I understand where Johnny is coming from. I have a soninlaw that served on the USS Annapolis.

And Berryus, I understood every word you wrote. The only TROLL around here is you bub. Grow up and act your age...not your IQ. No flame, just the honest truth. If I get banned for that, great. I won't have to read your drivel will I?

[ACSoft]

The best simulation simply must allow to do all what you want, even if this is completely silly, and try to simulate the situation as accurately as possible.

You want to man the deck gun in a giant storm ? OK do it, and if your poor guy is able to fire one shot, this shot should be totally out. Then, 1 minute later, your poor guy is lost, washed out by a wave. And if you take his place, the aiming should be so difficult that you will miss almost all shots. Finally, even you can be lost at see, with a end of game screen.

You want to practice some AA gunnery on sea gull bird ? OK do it, but maybe when you go back to port, you will see some girls with a panel of an "animal protection league" which do not applause but protest !!!

You want to dive with all hatch door open ? OK do it and see how fast you are flooded and how fast you will sunk.

You want to aim and kill the officer on the bridge with the AA gun ? OK do it, see the poor guy falling dead and then, receive an end game screen saying you were arrested by the crew and that you will be in martial Court as soon as the boat return to port (actually you can aim the guy but the trigger don't work, boof).

Etc..., etc...

It start to make me crasy all these peoples stating that all what should not be done should be forbidden in the game !!! ****ed, where is you gone your fantasy ?

The reality, if many things are forbidden in a simulation game, it is just because to simulate all, would tremendously increase the work to be done. It is as simple as that and has nothing to do with the matter to be or not to be realist.

This was my 25mm gut shot on this matter !!!

[StellarRat]

Revolter has apparently never been on the ocean. That's as calm as it gets. His picture is the paragon of calm seas and there is still water coming over the deck! I'd hate to be in any real weather on a sub deck. Even a small sailboat has more protection.

[cwojackson]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GT182:
I'm not doubting Johnny at all. I'm just going to talk to a WWII vet, or was a post WWII vet, that was on the old subs... not the nucs of today. I just want to hear from him about the deckguns.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, unless your vet friend sailed on German U-Boats his experience will be of little use in this matter.

German naval design always suffered from a "regional" area of operation mindset that compromised their vessels open water performance. Even their largest surface ships proved to be "wet" ships and needed redesigned bows for deployment into the North Atlantic. Their subs were no different, being designed for limited warfare against a regional enemy.

U.S. subs were designed with the Pacific in mind. This produced a larger vessel, DESIGNED for extended open water operations, with far better sea keeping qualities then their German cousins.

German subs had a very narrow beam, basically rounded hull, minimal keel and the extra topside weight of the deck gun. That produced a vessel that would roll like a pig in mild weather UNLESS you were headed directly into the seas and not manuvering.

A good example of this can be found with destroyers. A WWII Fletcher class could man it's guns in some fairly harsh weather, but the old WWI four stackers given to the English under lendlease couldn't man theirs in anything but mild weather. Why? The four stackers, with their long narrow hulls, rolled like pigs.

[GT182]

Ok, I just talked to Walt... he is a Sub vet from WWII and was on the USS Seacat. Back then it had a deckgun but it and it's AA guns were removed after the war.

He says the deckgun was only used in the very calmest of seas. That went for all subs, whether US, German, or Japanese. Decks were very slippery, and with no handrails, the deckwash made it too unsafe. It was wartime and hot a pleasure cruise. If seas were anything other than very calm, torpedos were used exclusively. No deckgun had any kind of stability control on any sub back then. If seas were rough it just wasn't used, period. A sailors life was more important than using it and being washed overboard.

So consider it a gift that you can use a deckgun in SHIII with anything other than a very calm sea. It's modeled correctly.

Cwojackson, all subs rolled like pigs while surfaced, US subs were no different than anyother. He told of the Exec being topside on the Conn during bad weather and puking down the periscope. Yes, it even worked it's was down the tube to inside and made the rest of the crew sick. He was one of em, and was sitting at the wheel at the time.

As for the Nukes of today, I've no idea how they ride surfaced. I missed out on a day cruise for family in Groton 3 years ago, or I could have told you first hand.

[Charlie901]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GT182:
Ok, I just talked to Walt... he is a Sub vet from WWII and was on the USS Seacat. Back then it had a deckgun but it and it's AA guns were removed after the war.

He says the deckgun was only used in the very calmest of seas. That went for all subs, whether US, German, or Japanese. Decks were very slippery, and with no handrails, the deckwash made it too unsafe. It was wartime and hot a pleasure cruise. If seas were anything other than very calm, torpedos were used exclusively. No deckgun had any kind of stability control on any sub back then. If seas were rough it just wasn't used, period. A sailors life was more important than using it and being washed overboard.

So consider it a gift that you can use a deckgun in SHIII with anything other than a very calm sea. It's modeled correctly.

Cwojackson, all subs rolled like pigs while surfaced, US subs were no different than anyother. He told of the Exec being topside on the Conn during bad weather and puking down the periscope. Yes, it even worked it's was down the tube to inside and made the rest of the crew sick. He was one of em, and was sitting at the wheel at the time.

As for the Nukes of today, I've no idea how they ride surfaced. I missed out on a day cruise for family in Groton 3 years ago, or I could have told you first hand. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Great! Thanks for the info! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Until the Devs add a script for men washing overboard, having to turn around to try to pick them up, losing renown for men washing overboard, and greatly improve the inacuracy of the guns, I'll settle for the restrictions we have now!

I doubt the Devs will ever add the latter anyway, too much work.

[Johnny_JG2]

ALL real sailors respect the sea.

Computer sailors don't. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Look at some pictures, or read some books, but you'll never develop that respect until you have been in the middle of the ocean- with noone around to help you, and 5 miles of ocean underneath you. You won't be screwing around on a slippery deck. You'll be holding on, strapped in your harness up on the bridge.. just wishing you could submerge where it is calm and safe.

You could expect to be in BIG trouble with the Captain if you even think of climbing over the bridge and heading down the ladder to the deck.

I'm sure there are some anecdotal reports of men in "rough" seas using their deck guns- but that certainly isn't the norm. One thing is for sure, also- that "rough" seas is relative to the boat you are on, and submarines are on the bottem of the totem pole in that respect.

If anyone DID use the deck gun in rough seas, they were strapped into harnesses, and were slipping around, falling, and hating life in general as they attempted to operate the gun. That's the stuff that makes the crew not have a whole lot of trust in the Captain- which is a bad, bad thing out there.

[GT182]

Johnny_JG2, that's exactly what Walt said. And he also said they had a great captain. The exec wasn't so hot, but all was cool even if he was on restriction for leaving to heavho from the foul smell of what came down the scope tube.

When they got into port in the Bahamas, Walt said he dressed in his dress whites. The exec came over as he was getting ready to leave the conn asking him if he remembered he was on restrictions. Walt said yes and that he figured that being in port he'd look better standing watch in his dress whites. Nothing more was said by the exec.

I'll save the story of them almost sinking because one of the torpedomen forgot to dog the torpedo hatch before they dived while at sea. Scary just to hear about that one. Johnny, you know what that ones about I think. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

[ACSoft]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GT182:
So consider it a gift that you can use a deckgun in SHIII with anything other than a very calm sea. It's modeled correctly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No it isn't modeled correctly as I said two three messages back in this thread, the theoretical "ideal simulator" should simulate everything, even if it is silly, suicidal or whatever you want.

In our case, this would be: almost impossible to aim at the target, and a big probability of loosing one or more men, even loosing the game if it is you taking the gun station.

[irR4tiOn4L]

What are you 'realists' actually arguing? Dont ramble on about whiners who dont want realism, analyse what your argument is.

If youre arguing that its too hard to aim, then I say its unrealistic to not be allowed to try.

If the argument is that its too dangerous as the deck 'should' (applying imagination) be awash, well i say that its unrealistic that the limit is 6m/s for both deck guns and flak guns, as well as different uboats with varying characteristics

Either way the arguments ive seen so far draw unsupported conclusions - this particular method of restricting gun usage bears no good resemblance to reality, and is no more realistic than the alleged gun stabilisation or recieving radio messages underwater.

There is but one more consideration to factor into this equation - the game already has a feature whereby even in winds under 7m/s if the water level reaches the deck gun/flak gun they become inoperable, even if currently manned, untill the water level rescinds.

This begs the question - why not base the appropriate trigger on how often the water level reaches the level of the deck/flak gun? (for example, if the gun is washed by water more than 3 times a minute; which would most likely occur in rough water; then the gun should be inoperable)

Barring this, even just modifying the thresholds between uboats and deck/flak guns would have fixed the problem and whining - how can you argue this would be unrealistic and/or a bad thing?

There is most definitely room for improvement in this area

[alanschu]

I don't think an ideal situation should let you do whatever you want, because then it's not a simulator anymore.

The second you're allowed to start doing stuff that doesn't happen is when you are no longer simulating the experience, but creating something new that is similar.

[GT182]

ACSoft, say what you want but until you talk to a Sub vet from WWII, or are one, and find out from them, don't tell me it's unrealistic. I sat a talked to Walt yesterday for 2 hours about this deckgun issue. He knows what he's talking about, so whine all you want. It doesn't change the facts unless you know more than he does, or was there. And by the sounds of things, you've neither to your credit.

Don't give me this "ideal simulator" ****. Everyone wants realism and that's what they have. As close to real as the devs could make it. If you want "ideal" then make it and use it yourself. Don't try and push what you want on me or others that like it the way it is. Do something constructive instead of crying about what ain't right... for you. All the whining around here, unless it's ligit - which deckguns isn't, just make the foums a big circus that's wasting space.

I've said my last about it, so keep on crying. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

[irR4tiOn4L]

gt182 im sure your friend didnt tell you the exact windspeed when this occurred. Nor that ship characteristics and gun/flak elevation played no part.

Stop appealing to authority and let your argument stand on its own feet. Your assertion that its as close as the devs could get it is ill founded. You know it.

Whining about whingers isnt constructive either - its hypocritical to require acsoft's input to be 'constructive' when yours is not.

[GT182]

Wind speed alone has nothing to do with it..... how rough the sea is and wind speed are both a part of it in combination.
During WWII they only used the deckgun when the sea was very very calm. NO deckgun back then was stable. Your AI gun crew will show you that if you let them, even when the game sea lets them use it. The rocking of the boat will throw them off. If I man the gun, sure I can score more and better hits. Just sit back and watch them miss and waste shells, if you dare.

Like I said, I'm outta here so keep on crying.

[Bubblehead1948]

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif There's no point in even continuing this line of reasoning. Some of these folks can't be made to understand the forces involved here. You either want realism or fantasy here. I've been through two typhoons; I don't know how many tropical storms.
I've seen steel welded catwalks busted up like pretzels; sponsons the size of small warehouses punched in. I've seen stress seams torn in two inch thick bulkheads. This was on a 44000 ton ship. At sea, 700 tons in those conditions, is like a wood chip in a blender. Personally, if my captain had ordered me on a gun deck in those conditions at the point of a pistol, I would have told him to pull the trigger and thanked him for giving me that indugence.

[Johnny_JG2]

If you want "full" realism- meaning you can attempt to man the deck gun in any wheather, no matter what the consequences, than they should also model the crew's reactions appropriately.

First of all, the crew would refuse to go out there. Second of all, if they actually DID go out there, there would be a big morale hit. Every time someone slipped and fell, the morale would drop even lower. Soon your guys would hate you and wouldn't do anything you asked. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Captain or not- you can't make your crew do things they don't want to do.

[Frederf220]

irR4tiOn4L has done some of most clear reasoning and discussion I have seen in a great while.

GT182, would you please be constructive and reasonable instead of insulting and aloof in your arguement(s)? Discussion until satisfaction is the point of forums.

"I don't think an ideal situation should let you do whatever you want, because then it's not a simulator anymore." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif Simulating every concievable action isn't being a sim anymore? Don't follow.

------------------------
I'd like to reference my previous post that seemed to be written in invisible-font:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I would imagine with increasing seas, your accuracy would go to pot before one is physically unable to man the thing. Right?

Well, at the "limit" in game, I'm still very able to be accurate with the gun at very long ranges. If this is unrealistic it should be adjusted.

So I ask why in 8m/s seas I'm not allowed to use the gun because it was still working just fine in 7m/s seas, and it's going to get very innacurate BEFORE the physical cutoff point.

Calm Seas - accurate
7m/s Seas - less accurate
8m/s Seas - slightly less accurate again
[H]m/s Seas - accuracy approaches zero
[J]m/s Seas - weapon is unable to be physically manned

Where J > H > 8.

Can you see the logical progression? Unless intuition is totally off, accuracy should go to pot in milder seas before the sea state the gun is considered unmannable.

As it stands now, accuracy is still going strong at 7m/s.

I'm all for making the deck gun not uber, but not using this odd, unjustified limit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If one claims that you wouldn't attempt gunnery in anything other than calm seas because of accuracy concerns, then I direct you to the fact that player-controlled or AI-controlled, accuracy is still going strong at the cutoff point. So unless one remains reasonably accurate up to and beyond the point where manning the gun becomes significantly hazardous (which would be weird http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif ), then accuracy should approach zero prior to inability to man the thing.

[DrReaper]

I would prefer being able to man the deck gun and maybe loosing a crew member or having a crew member get injured over not knowing if I will be able to use it at all. I have surfaced a couple of times thinking I should be able to use it only to find out I can't man it. Basically if they are going to limit it's use I would like to know if I will be able to use it or not BEFORE I surface.

[Johnny_JG2]

Well one thing that many of you don't seem to understand, is that REAL captains would never think, "well I would like to just man the innacurate deck gun and maybe lose a crew member or have one get injured instead of not at all..".

If you were in charge of sub, this thought would never enter your mind. The crew is very important to the captain- it's his job to keep them safe. The Captain simply wouldn't even have this on his mind. He wouldn't order his men to do something that would injure or kill his crew- especailly when that "something" is unnecessary.

The only reason *we* would man the deck gun is to get crazy tonnage on our patrols. I mean, back then they would have been so happy to return with just one or two ships sank. They have all those torpedos, they aren't gonna risk lives in the hopes that they can maybe stretch out there tonnage into 70000ton plus patrols every time.

[markkram95]

I totally agree with the realism of the deck gun on the subs not being used in bad weather, but what about the destroyers? Were they able to effectively man and use their guns against U-Boats in this weather, and if so why?

[Frederf220]

The limit for crew hazard would be much higher than 7m/s seas. I'd be fine with limiting the deck gun/flak gun there. Since when has a good simulation forced you to behave in a realistic manner?

Destroyers are a whole 'nother ball of wax. Much more freeboard and you can man the guns from the safety of inside with electric motors turning the guns.

[alanschu]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"I don't think an ideal situation should let you do whatever you want, because then it's not a simulator anymore." Simulating every concievable action isn't being a sim anymore? Don't follow. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because my dropping the U-Boat and trading it in for the Bismarck doesn't fit well for a submarine simulator. If a simulation is supposed to simulate the real experience, then what's the point in providing "conceivable actions" that aren't going to actually happen? It is no longer a simulator...but something else. Something less real.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Since when has a good simulation forced you to behave in a realistic manner? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All good simulators force you to behave in a realistic manner in some way. Whether it be the trim characteristics of the plane you're flying, or the appropriate actions of a uboat commander. If they suddenly let people do stuff that uboat commanders would not do, then you are no longer simulating a uboat commander. It becomes an arcade game where you can do stuff that shouldn't be done, all in the name of the holy score.

[Bubblehead1948]

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif With regard to the destroyers: they too would have had a difficult time keeping on target in a storm. The better bet would be to attack the sub using asw weapons like depth charges or hedgehogs. Even ramming (in some cases) might be a possibility. But anyway, look at the destroyers. The 5in gun mounts are enclosed. In many cases the targeting is done not by the gun crew, but by an analog fire control director with range finding equipt. The gun mounts (depending on age of ship) would be controlled from one source in concert and directed toward a target in salvos. Its done using syncros, servos, and motors. This stuff was around at least as early as 42 that I know of. You did not see this stuff on single open mounts where your best technology was hopefully a good set of optics. The destroyer gun crews are relatively safe, even in heavy weather. At some point though, the violence of the sea would make even fire control equipt less of an asset in that era.

[DrReaper]

If they are going to limit the deck gun and the waves on the ocean are not an indicator if you can use it or not then we need some kind indicator. I am tired of getting blasted for trying to use the guns when they can't be used.
How about if your submerged and you try to use the flak gun, instead of it saying "You cannot use when submerged" it would say "You cannot used when submerged - seas are to rough" That way there would be no guessing about surfacing to see if it works.

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
this particular method of restricting gun usage bears no good resemblance to reality, and is no more realistic than the alleged gun stabilisation or recieving radio messages underwater. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is absolutely realistic, because no U-Boat commander would take the chance of losing men overboard. Each man on a U-Boat is essential, and any commander who threatened his boat by silly antics like that wouldn't have lasted long.

It's a realistic restriction because we know that our crew aren't real men. It doesn't really bother us if one man, or ten men, die due to our obsessiveness about sinking enemy ships. Real commanders didn't have the luxury of throwing away their crewmen's lives on a whim.

[Charlie901]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DrReaper:
If they are going to limit the deck gun and the waves on the ocean are not an indicator if you can use it or not then we need some kind indicator. I am tired of getting blasted for trying to use the guns when they can't be used.
How about if your submerged and you try to use the flak gun, instead of it saying "You cannot use when submerged" it would say "You cannot used when submerged - seas are to rough" That way there would be no guessing about surfacing to see if it works. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Before trying to man them, use the navigator to list the weather report and he'll tell you the exact wind speed!

That's what its for!

This is what I do.

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by markkram95:
I totally agree with the realism of the deck gun on the subs not being used in bad weather, but what about the destroyers? Were they able to effectively man and use their guns against U-Boats in this weather, and if so why? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Destroyers had enclosed turrets, destroyers are much more stable than subs in higher sea states, destroyers had more complex gun-aiming technology, and correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm guessing that destroyers may have had some sort of rudimentary gun steadying device.

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Frederf220:
The limit for crew hazard would be much higher than 7m/s seas. I'd be fine with limiting the deck gun/flak gun there. Since when has a good simulation forced you to behave in a realistic manner? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Every single simulation I've played has imposed limits on what you can do with people under your command. That's what separates simulations from other types of games.

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DrReaper:
How about if your submerged and you try to use the flak gun, instead of it saying "You cannot use when submerged" it would say "You cannot used when submerged - seas are to rough" That way there would be no guessing about surfacing to see if it works. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can find out whether it will work or not by checking the weather. Anything over 6m/s and the gun won't work. Just ask your navigator - he can tell you.

[DrReaper]

Check the weather. I did not know that... Thanks for the tip.

[Frederf220]

Well then why can I surface in the middle of 10 destroyers? Why can I crash headlong into a seawall at flank speed? The game doesn't prevent me from doing those things does it?

No real U-boat commander would do those things, but I get to because I'm running the simulator. A simulator is a device which gives REALISTIC OUTPUT BASED ON THE INPUT. It has nothing to do with the "big picture" atmosphere and having you feel like you're there back in history.

And my crew would not burst into flames if I told them to man the deck gun in 8m/s seas. Worst that would happen is they'd miss 4/10 shots instead of 2/10 shots.

[ACSoft]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:
Every single simulation I've played has imposed limits on what you can do with people under your command. That's what separates simulations from other types of games. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's right. But I continue to pretend that the main reasons of that, is to limit the complexity and the time of development. In fact, to simulate "everything" is simply impossible. You will always forgot something !!!

Pratically, as I said already, this would increase something already complex by nature to something horribly complex, not speaking of all the additional code and ressources this would need. This is why every simulator design has the very difficult step, to decide what will be modelled and what won't. Moreover, it is almost impossible to found the perfect balance in a first version. It why it is probably important to express ourself, the users.

Peoples pretending it is perfectily correct and intentional to not allow something a U-boat captain would never do, are wrong. If it would be the case, why then it is possible to order "depth 250 meters" ? Why it is permitted to order "ahead flank" when inside the dock ? etc, etc...

What is sure, ironically, is that outside the game simulation world, professional simulations pay a special attention to particularely simulate all the events, which should in fact hopefully never happen. They are even some kind of simulation programs to precisely simulate: "... and what would happen if...". The "if" being something which will never be tryed in the real world !!!

To come back to our case, let me say to some peoples here, that I never said I want to be able to shoot at any target at any time in any conditions. To my taste, this would be equally unrealistic as it is now to simply forbid it on the basis of very simple rule (wind speed). The number one rule in simulation design is: "If you simulate something, simulate it as accurately as possible".

Actually, with a hull state of 100%, I know exactly that I can dive to 175 meters and stay here as long as I still have oxigen and/or battery power. One meter deeper... I am most probably dead !!! With the gun as long as I can go there, I am sure that I can aim myself and never miss a single shot. These two examples of simulation behaviors could have been, for sure, simulated much better, probably with not a great effort of suplementary coding. This would have added a lot to the game atmosphere.

Think about not being sure how deep you can really dive. Think about being at some depth and suddenly, after a random time, thing start to goes wrong. Think about the difficulty of deciding if you are going to use the deck gun, if weather conditions are "not so good, not so bad", if you know this may cost a man life. This is what I consider top simulation !!!

And it not because I say all that, that I dont love this game. So please, don't fire me. To my view, it is the most fantastic sub simulator ever done. The simulator I was dreaming for, since Silence Hunter I.

If I wouldn't love it, I wouldn't loose my time expressing me here. I would simply have trashed the game and started to do something else. It is because I love it, that I express my point of view on some matters which are sensitive to me, with the hope to bring my positive contribution to the future of this amazing piece of software.

[irR4tiOn4L]

my proposition is simple - im not after being able to order crew to man the deck gun in any seas, adding work for the devs.

In fact, i think 7m/s is about right for the deck gun in the situation.

What i have a problem with is that wind speed is used to determine this, and its uniform for deck guns and flak guns, as well as between uboat models.

Have a look at the flak gun on the type XXI - enclosed, high up, within the conning tower - not dangerous in all but the roughest seas, and then no more so than watch crew.

Then look at the type II - low, unprotected, dangerous to man in any rough water

Now my question is; why must it always be 7m/s, and why even use wind speed for this at all?

If you can give me a satisfactory answer to these two questions, then i will acknowledge i was wrong. Otherwise reorder your thoughts.

[rupert77]

I'm reaching here since I've never served on a WW2 nor a modern day submarine but I could imagine that a WW2 sub would infact make a more stable gun platform than a modern sub might. WW2 boats still had the fleetboat doctrine in them, basically 'ships' which travelled surfaced alongside fleets but had the ability to dive, whereas modern subs are optimized for underwater service thus their hull differs quite a bit from their predecessors in WW2 which might aswell make them more illsuited for surfaced operations.

In any case though a WW2 sub had a length of some 70m, a tonnage of 700-1,000 tons arguing it's less stable than a tug boat is absurd.

I too think the deck gun is too sensitive when it comes to being manned and not because of some obscure theories I've set up but because the game doesn't distinct between deck gun and flak, with the latter definitely being a far safer platform which might aswell be manned in weather conditions the deck gun might not. Furthermore the game doesn't consider wind directions, what speed the boat is doing, if it does any at all, but most important of all the wave patterns. The ability to use the deck gun should be dependent on the sea not primarily on windspeed. I've had apparent 'storms' with 7m/s windspeed but clear skies and the sea didn't even wash the deck, in reality the deck gun would have been operational. By the way all who think 7m/s is a huge storm that's 25kph or 15mph, that's a mild wind by my standards!

Having said that arguing 'the deck gun is too effective' 'the deck gun sinks too much' thus has to be limited in it's use doesn't make sense to me anyway. First of all this is a game, you'll sink more than they did in reality anyhow no matter how much you nerf the deck gun.
Rather it should tell the devs there is something wrong with the damage model in general and perhaps the AI too if a deck gun sinks a destroyer faster than the DD sinks the sub. There is another thread on this forum concerning ships sinking too fast through torps, this has nothing to do with the deck gun's effectivity but proves that ships sink too fast. As far as AI is concerned we'd have less sinkings in general if the AI would race away like it did in Aces of the Deep for instance, a freighter doing Zig-Zag at 5kn is a joke. Especially faster ships should try and make a run for it -outrunning the boat, maybe break the formation etc. this would be much more effective at lowering tonnage sunk without nerfing the gun or forcing the player into anything.

Lastly that video which was posted is cool. The sound of the deck gun is awesome me thinks and unlike someone said the shots in the video don't go passed because of the inaccuracy of the gun itself but because for one it is a single gun firing, at certain ranges you need additional shots to estimate the range and what's more in one of the pictures it clearly fires a shell into the sea in order to hit the waterline of the freighter, which it does.

Oh one more thing, haven't had too many freighters shoot at me since I'm only in 1940 but merchant crews were historically quite ineffective with the deck gun. Keep in mind these are normal sailors, rarely trained with artillery, thus they really shouldn't be all too accurate.