PDA

View Full Version : Some ships are wrong; Can they be modded?



TheRealWulfmann
05-02-2005, 07:51 PM
I don't want to be a whinner as some can only find what is wrong with things and miss the great part and SH3 is certainly a great fun game.
That said, it is not perfect and I wondered if any have dabbled in modding the ships.
First, the V&W does not exist. There was 5 similar classes; S, T,U, V, W and they are often catergorized as S,T, U, V & W and perhaps someone got mixed up and didn't check this.
Also the first V; HMS Viligant, was launched 12-12-42 and did not enetr service until the late spring of 43 so having them on the day the war began is not right. The Hunt class DEs were also not around at the beginning with the first type entering late spring 1940 and type II a year later with III a further year later.
Not sure but I doubt that many American ships would have been in Brit convoys at the very beginning as well.
While I intend to look into this myself I was wondering if someone else has already tinkered with these. If not I will and report back, -----------after a few more patrols, this is way cool!!
Wulfmann

panthercules
05-02-2005, 08:54 PM
Yeah - too bad there have to be compromises made to get a game like this out the door - like IL-2, SH3 seems to be so close to perfection (in a lot of ways) that the shortcomings seem that much more glaring/disappointing when spotted.

For example, it's too bad we can't have period-accurate recognition manuals - it's somewhat off-putting to leaf through my recog manuals in 1939-1940 and see pictures of Liberty and Victory ships, that weren't in existence by that time (The first of the 2,751 Liberty ships was the SS Patrick Henry, launched on Sept. 27, 1941, and the Victory ships weren't designed until 1943 or so). Sort of like still having the "sende" label on the sonar station after they removed the button on those early subs that weren't supposed to have active sonar yet.

As for the "V&W" destroyers you mentioned, I think either one of 2 things may be true: (1) the devs meant to refer to the "VW" destroyers, which were an early but abortive attempt by the Germans to develop a seaworthy automobile, which they finally achieved during the 1960s as revealed by the Volkswagen Beetle floating car commercials of that era; or (2) IIRC, I saw some posts here earlier that this was done by the devs merely to indicate a destroyer of the "V" class or the "W" class, which supposedly were so similar in appearance that it would be reasonable to lump them together in a recog manual so that a single picture could represent a member of either of the two (V & W) classes of destroyers. As far as their possible appearance in the game (as opposed to the recog manual) too early from an historical perspective, I can't say as I have yet to get close enough to any such escorts for long enough to worry about what type they were (Alaaaaaarrrrrrmmmmmm!) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

quillan
05-02-2005, 10:50 PM
Or perhaps the developers used www.uboat.net (http://www.uboat.net) as their research tool, because over there they list the Admiralty V & W (http://uboat.net/allies/warships/class.html?ID=23&navy=HMS) class destroyer. Perhaps that's what it's intended to represent?

TheRealWulfmann
05-03-2005, 09:45 AM
The WWI era V and the W class,did not have radar at the beginning of the war and as there are 3 Hunt class types they could have had 2 V type and stuck with one or the other name to be accurate, if that means anything the first withput radar and the second with? Just a suggestion
The modified of the classes were referred to as V&W but that would not be official as in "pocket battleship" was not a real name but just stuck after nicknamed. It was used to easily tell the mods from the other 2 V and the W classes as to being part of the third modified group. By WWII that would not be needed here, IMO. Not the main point I am making though. One could have just had these without radar and would make more "real" sense. Nit picking but id the Type VII had a snorkle 2 years early someone would call foul on that.
I have this in my current project (MAW) and there are the artistic guys that think the right dates and operational details are not a real big deal. Things can be done right , as in this case, just as easy as wrong.
Just exchanging ideas here as this game is super but saying "like IL-2", sorry, this is much closer to perfection than that game. CFS3 out the box was terrible but moddong has it far superior (To those that want to rebuild it rather than play it, LOL) a sim to IL-2. To each his own.
This, however, is the only game in town for submarining, IMO and is very good. I will make some date changes and test them, if they work I will make them available to those anal guys that want ships to appear when they really did. If we got Type XXI boats in the Spring of 43 I believe most might also find that inaccurate. That is my point; accuracy. I don't have all the answers but I have questions and if I am wrong give me a source. I will make sure the changes I make and make available are correct or I won't offer them.
Wulfmann

JebUSMC
05-03-2005, 11:28 AM
The V & W type destroyers were all built in the 1918-1919 time frame according to Jane's Fighting Ships of WW2. The only real glaring omission to me is the lack of heavy cruisers and Battlecruisers for the British and the lack of battleships and cruisers for the Americans. Everything else can loosely represent classes that did exist at the time, though I'd still like to see those classes represented just because I'd love to get a shot at torpedoing them. The lack of the Queen Elizabeth type is a little sad too, considering how important they were for the British.

TheRealWulfmann
05-03-2005, 02:22 PM
The Hunt class is way off.
The Greeks never had a type I which is in the game but they had type II and II, which is not. I simply made some additions and they are now in the game as well as corrected Hunt dates.
The V&W are the ships from the "Modified W" class but since some were named witha "V" they picked up the V&W which stuck. Many of the names in SH3 for these are ficticious, do not exist, and many "J" type names sre for other ships like the L, M, N and O classes which were different and entered the war much later, but I guess since we do not see names in the game it does not matter.
I also made Free French and Norweigian Type III Hunts and intend to see what else got moved around and put those in as well.
I also added the remove dates for those that were sunk as the game does for Battleships and cruisers.
Wulfmann

seawolf869
05-03-2005, 02:52 PM
Just wondering, but where is the French fleet?

I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't mind putting a few torpedoes into a French BB.

TheRealWulfmann
05-03-2005, 03:33 PM
There is no French fleet, look in your museum to see what ships are available. I will find all the various ships the USA and Brits gave to other countries that are of the type in SH3 and add them so there will be French, Greek, Dutch etc, whatever but since I just bought SH3 I am not sure how everything works so do not know how the game generates ships.
If I add a French DD and there is no way the game uses a French DD, what will the point be?
But, if I don't give it a go, we will never know!!!
Wulfmann

TheRealWulfmann
05-03-2005, 03:49 PM
Here is a Greek Hunt class Type III as it shows up in the SH3 museum. I simply copied the correct data and added this to the Greek section.
Wulfmann Greek ship (http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/Wulfmann/Greek-Hunt-III.jpg)

seawolf869
05-03-2005, 05:22 PM
First, I know what's in the deficient "museum".

Second, I wasn't asking you to create anything.

Third, the French fleet and many other ships should already be in the game. No one should have to modify the game they paid good money for to make it historically accurate.

TheRealWulfmann
05-03-2005, 07:04 PM
Sorry you got offended.
I simply do not assume people know everything and also post for others reading these that may not be as well informed as you are.
Nor was I assuming you personally were asking for me to mod for you.
I was simply stating what I have been finding and intended to do anyway.
Finally I do not think the time to create ships that did little to nothing in the U-boat war are relevant. But, that is my own view and I respect yours.
IMO, the extra efforts to make ships like the French would be better used to improve the damage models on the existing ones and add more British cruisers and a couple Italian warships.
But, again, just my opinion.
Sometimes people post only to those on their own level of experience and new bees can benefit by a broader explanation like check the museum.
Wulfmann

seawolf869
05-03-2005, 08:05 PM
I wasn't offended.

I think you just misunderstood my original message. I was trying to be clear.

If someone who bought this game hasn't discovered the museum after one day, then something is wrong. Explore the game.

I don't see what difference it makes whether a particular ship or country's fleet had any "effect" on the U-boat war, as to whether it's in the game or not.

The fleet & ships existed. Therefore, they should be in the game.

With the exception of the war ending on the historical date, the game is alternate history. No U-boat commander even came close to racking up the tonnage that I've seen people talking about on this message board. Britian would have been out of the war before Pearl Harbor if they had.

Whether players want the game to be diverse/random or follow strict historical guidelines, the choice should be there. They should be able to play it the way they want.

I think most players would enjoy such things as intercepting an American task force on its way to the Panama Canal, or finding a French task force on patrol in the Bay of Biscay, or fighting the Italians after they switched sides in '43.

If the designers can go through the trouble of putting the constellations in the sky, I think they can make the fleets/ships accurate.

No offense. Just trying to get a point across, and you are the first person that has addressed it in any way. :-)