Would this even be possible?

[jbacon69]

I was wondering if the damage model in the game would allow us to cause certain things to happen to the u boats under attack. What i had in mind was say you get hit while on the surface. Would it be possible to "puncture" the ballast tanks to prevent safe diving or even to cause a fuel spill if u damage the fuel tanks? What about getting hit on the deck where the deck gun shells are stored and having a deadly explosion like when we torp an ammo store on a bb? This game seems to be missing normal random events that real crews had to deal with like bad battery cells and other misc mechanical and electrical problems. I don't even think they modeled in hydrogen buildup in the battery compartments which is a real shame b/c it would make it harder to recharge the batteries at high speeds. They didnt even include lubricating oil as a consumable like fuel http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif even though it was vital to keeping the deisels running. No overheating prop shaft bearings, loose pipes, electrical problems. My great grandfather served
on a british sub and said they spent 10 percent of their time hunting, 30 percent bored to death, and 60 percent doing maintanence and fixing mechanical problems so they could eventually make it back to port. I guess I'm just wondering if fixing any of the ommisions would be possible?

[jbacon69]

I was wondering if the damage model in the game would allow us to cause certain things to happen to the u boats under attack. What i had in mind was say you get hit while on the surface. Would it be possible to "puncture" the ballast tanks to prevent safe diving or even to cause a fuel spill if u damage the fuel tanks? What about getting hit on the deck where the deck gun shells are stored and having a deadly explosion like when we torp an ammo store on a bb? This game seems to be missing normal random events that real crews had to deal with like bad battery cells and other misc mechanical and electrical problems. I don't even think they modeled in hydrogen buildup in the battery compartments which is a real shame b/c it would make it harder to recharge the batteries at high speeds. They didnt even include lubricating oil as a consumable like fuel http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif even though it was vital to keeping the deisels running. No overheating prop shaft bearings, loose pipes, electrical problems. My great grandfather served
on a british sub and said they spent 10 percent of their time hunting, 30 percent bored to death, and 60 percent doing maintanence and fixing mechanical problems so they could eventually make it back to port. I guess I'm just wondering if fixing any of the ommisions would be possible?

[shaggyofwv]

You seem to be overlooking one important fact: It is a GAME. I don't want to have to worry about every little thing that happened in real life, I want an enjoyable experience.

[Mylo42]

Bacon,

I'm with you on this one. I think it would have been nice if the game modeled increased chance of mechanical breakdown the faster the engines were driven, making running at flank for too long quite risky.

...as well, I believe that flooding to the battery cells in a real U-boat created quite a problem, as you mentioned.

[gabriel_cd]

What's worse, is that I believe at least some of these were modelled in SH2! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Happy hunting!

[jbacon69]

Engine damage from flank speed and hydrogen buildup in the battery compartment were in fact definitly modeled into sh2. And about it being just a game.... Realism settings could keep it playable for you pansies. If you can't take the heat I hear the French need sub commanders.

[Mylo42]

Whoa ......nasty. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Yes, one would think that realism settings could keep the, excuse the term.....game...playable for many different types of players. My settings would be cranked. I don't care if I don't sink a thing. If checking a box means the inside of my sub might fill up with deadly gas if my batteries get flooded then...I'm checking the box, it's that simple. (It would be a ***** to have to stay on the surface in order to ventilate the sub, so that you could live, but, it would be challenging.)

[TheFastFreddie]

I agree. I'd love to see a different damage model with things breaking down and taking a round to the hull would have a new meaning. Just let it fall under an option so people wouldn't cry about how hard it is.

[alanschu]

I imagine that this is one of those things that it is easy to say you want so you can "experience" things better....but if it actually existed I doubt anyone would appreciate it for long.


The 100th time you have to fix something because it simply "broke" would get irritating after a while.

[TheFastFreddie]

I fixing to pass 1.5 million tons on my second career and I'm only on my 25th patrol. Anything new and unexpected at this point would be pleasing. I've only come close to dying one time and that was because I didn't dive fast enough when a destroyer rammed me. I was down to 25% hull integrity and should of died. Hopefully a new damage model would fix that and add something unexpected.

[Gouldjg]

I played with the damage model and this is what I have found.

you can weaken and strenghen components in the game.

There is a health point and armour level that does this.

You can weaken compartments.

You can slow down or speed up flooding.

You can change how boyant the sub is after certain ammount of flooding.

You can determine what percentage of damage a compartment takes before it starts flooding.

e.g. I have had it set that if one dc gets close to your broadside, your compressor takes damage, thus slowing your sub even at flank.

All this will need to be looked at after the 1.3 in case they already fixed it.

I was just about to reduce the chances of DD sinking after a ramming charge, but thats on hold now.

[alanschu]

You made it through to the end of the war already?

I've yet to make it passed 1943. One career I got bombed to oblivion (right before snorkel became available), and my second career I met up with some VERY persistent destroyers that eventually scored some critical hits on me

[Jex_TG]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jbacon69:
Engine damage from flank speed and hydrogen buildup in the battery compartment were in fact definitly modeled into sh2. And about it being just a game.... Realism settings could keep it playable for you pansies. If you can't take the heat I hear the French need sub commanders. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know I also thought that things were missing in this sim that were in the previous. Not that I've actually managed to play it yet but from what I've been reading on the posts here, it seems lacking in some respects.

Surely the idea of a sequel is to improve upon the product is it not? You make a game, the community play it, mod it, provide input into it and what they'd like to see in the next version.

Except it sounds as though SH3 falls short, or missed off some good stuff that came with 2 - is it the same dev team? If not then perhaps it's not a good idea to switch devs.

They did the same with SWAT 4. Left out a tonne of stuff that made SWAT 3 so great, and now people are left wondering why they don't have a better game than before.

Sequels should contain all the good stuff from previous versions, and then go on to add new and improved items. If not we just get a game built on the success of its predecessor but feeling decidedly like a different game.