PDA

View Full Version : Hull Integrity? Please Nooooooooooo



Teddy Bar
10-23-2004, 07:58 PM
Subsim (http://www.subsim.com/) have news regarding a German language preview of SHIII which is here (http://www.gamestar.de/magazin/previews/angespielt/action/21007/index.html) .

The last screen shot has 'Hull Integrity 100%'

I am very concerned about this.

Lanzfeld
10-23-2004, 09:07 PM
I will second the concern about this!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

How can this be? With such a PROMISED focus on reality I believe that this warrants some explanation. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

mog_tr
10-23-2004, 09:44 PM
It is definitely cause for worry, but we can't immediately assume that having a simple percentage indicator precludes a location specific damage system (as opposed to an arcadey hit point system).

Lanzfeld
10-23-2004, 10:19 PM
Even if this is a location specific indicator there is no way in reality that you could assign a percentage damage to it!

HeibgesU999
10-23-2004, 11:05 PM
I'm not sure there is any other way to convoy this info to the player. Unless it was totally visual through a change in graphics. More little leaks or something like that.

But maybe it will only be visible while the player is surfaced.

lobosrul
10-24-2004, 12:02 AM
Would it be all that unrealistic to give the player an estimate on hull damage?? Wouldnt the crew be able to make an educated guess on its state. I dont mean saying: the hull is exactly 44.8% damaged. But like severe, moderate etc.

Drebbel
10-24-2004, 12:17 AM
Keep your eye on Subsim ! They will have a preview soon !

HeibgesU999
10-24-2004, 12:44 AM
Maybe how good your LI is rated would effect how accurate a hull damage report you receive.

bootysnapper69
10-24-2004, 02:04 AM
what if hull damage was done in sections of the sub?
like...

stern at 60%
bow at 50%
overall at 55%

didnt hulls have more than one layer or shell too?

server1a
10-24-2004, 02:51 AM
Remember that there will be many levels of realism avaliable to the player in this game. Didn't the devs say that there will be a sheet or page where you can check the realism options that you want. Just like you can have the option to have "Free Camera" on there will probably be an option to turn on "Hull Integrity Gauge".

Don't worry, I'd hardly believe that they'd take us this far only to fall on their faces regarding something like a "health metre".

Redwine
10-24-2004, 06:25 AM
Hull integrity was discused some time ago.........

I remember i wrote a voice information can be more real.......

In example, your Chieff informing you.......

"Sir.... we have light hull damage, with small flooding level."

"Sir.... we have hull damage, with controlable flooding level."

"Sir.... we have severe hull damage, flooding level high but under control."

"Sir.... we have strong hull damage, flooding level is uncontrolable, we must to surface....."


It is normal and real your crew inform you about the damage in the ship.

I think so it is better than an instrument measuring hull integrity.

Of course, you can request this information, when you go to the damage panel you can see a record of the crew advice about the damaged parts and level of damage into a log board.

Just an idea.........

Sockeye45
10-24-2004, 07:08 AM
I think Redwine's suggestion of the Chief telling you what's happening would be a nice touch. Then when the damage has been fixed, the Chief could tell you so. I think it would keep you informed better during "high tension" situations, rather than going back and forth to the damage centre.

Voice cues (maybe not the right term) sounds good to me

Cheers

Mix-Martes86
10-24-2004, 07:25 AM
I also second Red's idea. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ravenspire1
10-24-2004, 07:41 AM
Well when it comes to realism they didnt have a damage controll panel at all.

They issued orders directly when they happend, if they could fix it, or the captain recived a damage rapport from the crew and then toke measures against the damage.

So when it comes to realism we shouldnt have a damage controll panel at all but instead the captain should recive information over the inter com system they had and in our case, since its a game, by a little text popping up that show what they are saying over the inter com. Then a drop down menu, where the captain (you) could choose from different action he want to take against the problem.

Frank_Torpex
10-24-2004, 08:08 AM
If they did this (I am not sure since I dont know how its implemented) like SH2 it will be a huge bummer.
I dont understand why subsims do not model damage better!? Its not like there areent real submariners around to explain how submarine construction completely contradicts this "hull integrity meter BS". Hull integrity is a space ship term! LOL
The reality of the matter is that the weakest part of the sub are the hull penetrations IE: Torpedo tubes, diesel sea water cooling inlets and outlets, induction and exhaust valves, and "stuffing boxes" where wires, hydraulic coltrol shafts, propellor shafts and pericsopes penetrate.
All it takes is a 1" hole at 200 meters to not get stopped for a couple of minutes, and the sub is too heavy to surface.

The use of a meter to measure the pressure hull strength, if they insist, would have to be directly related to the skill level and experience of the Engineering Officer's estimate of how damaged it is. There would be no possible way (short of dry-docking) to gain an accurate measure of hull damage. There are so many areas that are inacessable, and damage that could sink you could be hidden until its too late.

My suggestion would be the following:

1-Chief Engineers estimate of pressure hull damage: No Damage-light damage-serious damage-critical damage. In this no hull damage could be repaired at sea, each having a % effect on the subs ability go deep.

2-Flooding from hull penetrations: Diesel Seawater, periscope packings, etc...Each is stoppable, some may lost due to their requiring to not be operated until repaired in port-variable with crew quality.

3-Reserve bouyancy: Established from the difference in surfaced and submerged displacement weights. As the sub floods the reserve buoyancy depleats, regardless of how much water you pump/blow from the trim tanks.

4-A shovel full of sand-AKA The Das Boot Dilema we all know. Resting on the bottom your sub does not roll on its side and die AKA SH2. :P You are permitted to conduct repairs an not sink while you rest on the bottom, regardless of reserve buoyancy. (Unless your pump is OOC then you may be screwed-or the ol' bucket brigade can be used).

My point is that fighting the enemy is 60% of the U-Boat Captains battle, the other 40% is fighting the damage with a damage model equal to or greater then SH1. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Frank

CB..
10-24-2004, 09:18 AM
i agree ..the hull intergrity meter/read out idea is over kill....it deprives the player the chance to use his/her own intelligence...after all if you have been damaged ...and have had to repair many mayor systems and stop heavy flooding/fires etc...it stands to reason that over-all the boat is no longer in "factory condition" any player should then be able to understand that greater caution should be taken in chosen maximum depth settings and making attacks etc... wheres the risk if you allready know what the state of your boat is in a percentage statement..? why sacrifice the immersion level by making it too obvious; if the player can't figure out from his damage screen that his boat isnt in perfect condition; then he should be thinking about why he can't figure this out..not simply glancing at a health meter and having any need to think about this aspect of the immersion taken out of his hands...for example once you have taken damage , and even after making repairs...the factory maximum and test depth recommendations should be thrown out the window...and so on...you could crush at half test depth ....the boat should start flooding at a much shallower depth.. that should tell the player very clearly tha his hull intergrity is reduced....just like anything else....having a hull intregity meter,( showing hull integrity as if it was exactly the same ,in fact, as a "fuel" guage) is shoddy and unimaginative..it's not neccessary..

for example again...a player should pull out of a risky attack because he is suffering from malfunctioning systems and flooding NOT because his hull intregity meter is reading 25 %

a subtle but HUGE difference in command simulation

but if some sort of meter is required then;
i would say that exactly the same effect could be gained if you substituted the plainly daft hull integrity figure for the enginners best guess at the current maximum safe allowable depth....simply adjust the red line on the depth meter..same thing ..much more relevant..

any one can use their noggin to work it out from there..what a hull intregity meter really says about the damage system in the game is that it isn't very well modelled so we have to include an arcade feature to compensate for this..which actually just makes matters worse..why oh why are games set up at the intellectual level of garden snails.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Jose.MaC
10-24-2004, 09:39 AM
Remember that factory especifications always have a quoficient of minoration. So you may discover you still able to go deep!

CB..
10-24-2004, 09:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jose.MaC:
Remember that factory especifications always have a quoficient of minoration. So you may discover you still able to go deep! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

exactly !!! why deprive the player of that sense of risk.. and exploration..it all adds to the gameplay.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Lanzfeld
10-24-2004, 09:51 AM
I agree and I also wanted to chime in to mension that this ties into the player knowing his EXACT damage and EXACT time to repair the damage the instant it happens. We need to make this go away as well.

The Chief cannot possibly know how long the engine will take to fix until he knows what is wrong with it. It will take him a good hour to tear into it to see what is wrong with it and then, maybe, he can give you an ESTIMATE of how long repairs will take. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Frank_Torpex
10-24-2004, 05:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lanzfeld:
I agree and I also wanted to chime in to mension that this ties into the player knowing his EXACT damage and EXACT time to repair the damage the instant it happens. We need to make this go away as well.

The Chief cannot possibly know how long the engine will take to fix until he knows what is wrong with it. It will take him a good hour to tear into it to see what is wrong with it and then, maybe, he can give you an ESTIMATE of how long repairs will take. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent point!~ I agree whole heartedly! Thats why I say that a sub-sim without a good damage control model is only half a sub-sim. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Frank

HeibgesU999
10-24-2004, 05:30 PM
At this point, I imagine they will not have time to change it.

hauitsme
10-24-2004, 05:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Frank_Torpex:
...Thats why I say that a sub-sim without a good damage control model is only half a sub-sim. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So, which half are you going to buy and play?http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v325/hauitsme/Consider.gif

Subsim
10-24-2004, 08:18 PM
There's no way to objectively estimate the condition of the pressure hull or how long it will take to repair a diesel but there has to be some way to communicate an "estimate" to the player. The way I prefer to look at it, when the U-boat is pounded by depth charges and the "Chief" posts "Hull Integrity 68%", it merely means based on "his" experience and judgment, the hull has sustained moderate damage. Surely, if we were experienced U-boat men, we could guess what shape the boat was in by how many dc's slammed against us....

... the practical application of hull integrity is applied well in SH3. You have a known test depth, and a crush depth that is only known when it is too late. Once your boat is getting beat up, your crush depth becomes more likely to occur at shallower depths. Even though your estimate seems to be precise your real depth limitation is not.

I doubt if this is high on the list of important things to take care of but if it were, the easy solution would be to remove or blank these estimates at the highest realism setting. I doubt many would play this way though. If I were a U-boat captain, I would want estimates on repairs. Maybe the estimates could be made less precise or reliable. Like the Windows download status... when you are downloading something... one minute it tells you "21 minutes to finish" and when you check back in 5 minutes is it now saying "26 minutes to finish"... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kapitan_Nereus
10-25-2004, 01:47 AM
whoa whoa whoa, chill for a sec
these are the shots taken on the easiest mode don't forget.
the rough esitmate of hull integrity could just been an option or based on your overall slected level of realism (like, over 60% you don't even get a rough estimate)
Redwines idea is a really good, and would be an excellent addition to the hardcore settings.
even if the devs leave the percentage in on all difficulties, i'm sure it could be modded out, or it could be an option in the realism menu

I say, we got our Dynamic Campaign, anything else is just gravy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Leif...
10-25-2004, 01:54 AM
A good mechanic could probably give you a very accurate estimate on how long time it will take to repair any part of the diesels. It wouldn€t be the first time they change a valve, rod, piston, bearing or whatever. They are VERY familiar with every single part of the entire machine. I bet they know before it breaks what is about to break.

So a good estimate on most mechanical problems isn€t that far fetched, sometimes some estimates may be off due to non-normal problems but mostly they should be fairly accurate.

Hull percentage though, nah.

Leif€¦

Teddy Bar
10-25-2004, 02:56 AM
All u-boat/submarine/warship simulations have to monitor and account for hull integrity, but they should not show it to the player except in easy mode.

In real life the crew would not know how damaged the hull steel and/weld joints were.

What the crew would see, is when the external/internal packing start to fail. Such as that around the propellor shaft.

You can have failing external/internal packing etc and have close to the original tensil strength of the hull steel and/weld joints .

Some one with more knowledge would be able to tell us if leakage from external/internal packing sunk the line share of u-boat/submarines over a hole caused by an explosion.


I guess that I am just a little jumpy when I see 'hull integrity %' though it is based upon past bad experiences. The Dev Team do seem to be striving for a simulation, but you just never know when something will slip through the cracks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

bertgang
10-25-2004, 03:10 AM
Please, dev team, follow the Redwine's idea.

Messervy
10-25-2004, 04:54 AM
And if the DevTeam fails you can allways choose not to look at it! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Jose.MaC
10-25-2004, 05:40 AM
Subsim idea is quite good for me.

Redwine
10-25-2004, 07:29 AM
Very interesting discusion ...!

It was discused many weeks ago, and i am sure Dev.Team had readed it that time.......

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=857101043&m=998107745&r=998107745#998107745

I am happy to see there are lot of people intersting when appears a topic related to realism.

There is a factor mentioned..........

In SH2 hul damaged or stressed is not repaired......... if you loss 25 % of hull integrity it is lossed and you do not recover it anymore.......

In example, if you receive a little damage in the hull, you can stop the flooding, or put it into evacuate rate of the flooding pumps.........

After the combat, a sailor or a diver can go out side into the ballast tanks, and repair the hull and recover its integrity partially..........

I am wrong.........?

In example, imagine SH2 hull integrity instrument........ you was under attack and loss 80 % of your hull integrity........ you remain with 20 %.

You survive the attack........... then if you stay in surface and no sailing or sailing at reduced speed you can recover 50 5 of you hull integrity, then you remain with 70 %...........

Will be so great if hull integrity partial recovery can be considered and included........ in the same way we can recover an engine or another machine...........

What do you think ?

CB..
10-25-2004, 07:57 AM
i agree! some sort of factor that allows for minor repairs on the hull would be interesting and realistic ...the inclusion of some skills for certain crew members in welding or other sorts of repair experience would be interesting...perhaps these skills could be enhanced when in friendly ports ...lots of great ideas which are explored in depth in other genres would apply very nicely in a sub simulator...a rendevour with your supply ship might allso give you an opportunity to asses the hull damage...perhaps you might even only get a trully accurate picture of the state of the boat when surfaced and having sent a crew member into the water to inspect the hull...etc..repairs being possible depending on equipment available....when along side your support vessel ...certain damage can be repaired that coud not be repaired whilst on your own etc...more repairs could be carried out that could not be attempted at sea when in a friendly port...and carried on from patrol to patrol..even in dry dock i doubt that a boat could be 100% returned to factory condition during war-time conditions..this way you get to know your boat and it does become part of your "team" not some constantly renewable object that gets completely restored to full health at each patrol start up..this adds flavour to a campaign and makes it dynamic on a extra level...no machine is exempt from wear and tear and few machines are fully restored to new condition, when badly damaged ,no matter how long they spend in the repair shop..all adds to the caution needed in gameplay...and makes tonnage totals a much more cautionary tale.

Frank_Torpex
10-25-2004, 04:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In SH2 hul damaged or stressed is not repaired......... if you loss 25 % of hull integrity it is lossed and you do not recover it anymore.......

In example, if you receive a little damage in the hull, you can stop the flooding, or put it into evacuate rate of the flooding pumps.........

After the combat, a sailor or a diver can go out side into the ballast tanks, and repair the hull and recover its integrity partially..........

I am wrong.........?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont want to say you are wrong, but, any repair made at sea is only a temporary fix/patch. Not something that will return the hull to the state it was in before the damage occured.

My issue here is that there is no seperation of hull and where 95% of the flooding comes from. So calling it "Hull integrity" is really only one factor in the Overall condition of "water tight integrity" of the U-Boat.

So basically where hull repairs/patches would/could return the subs water tight integrity to 100% at say 100 meters, at 150 meters watertight integrity would be reduced significantly. Repairs to packings, stuffing boxes, shaft penetrations, isolated systems that were leaking could and should return the water tight integrity to it full strength. Submarines did actually carry spare parts for such damage, however spare hull plating.....not likely. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Frank

bertgang
10-26-2004, 04:02 AM
As Frank_Torpex said, repairs made at sea were only temporary patches; good enough to see homeland again, not to afford further engagements or to reach high depth.

AoD didn't managed very well that, as the sub was perfectly restored when repairs at sea were possible.
My way to bypass the problem was (is) thinking that such reapirs weren't reliable, and better ones were required at soon; so, back to base, even if not forced by the game.

Messervy
10-26-2004, 04:52 AM
The other day I was thinking about hipotetical scenario:
Your sub lies heavily damaged on the sea bed ( like in Das Boot movie).
You managed to stop the flooding but the boat is to heavy to surface. (das wasser mus raus).
Since you cannot get rid of the water you need to reduce the wight of the boat.
Hipoteticaly you can dump the fuel and fire the torpedoes?
I know it is a far fetched idea but in theory it should work.

GertFroebe
10-26-2004, 05:13 AM
You are only able to fire Torpedos close under the water surface. Under higher depth the torpedo tubes wouldn't stand the water pressure when they're opened.

Would be nice to be able to pump water from the Zentrale out of the boat.

Redwine
10-26-2004, 10:55 AM
Wel, if you read that i wrote, i am not saiding you can recover the total hull integrity, sea is not a good repair center, i wrote, you loss 80 % and with repairs you can recover 50 % not all 80 % lossed........

A small fisure in the hull can be repaired with "weld" (is that the name in english ?), and may be after this you will not able to rech max crush depth..........

But in SH2 repairs in the hull are not cosidered.........

About packages, "O"Rings, joins, gaskets, internal tubes............. I think so they are managed by the Flooding damage condition........... and not related with the external hull integrity.........

When you stps the flood, it is suposed all packages, gaskets, "O" Rings and tubes was repaired and the sistem is reset............

I will apreciate in example a "Chieff cominucation.........

"Sir ... we need 2 hours at surface to weld a damage in the ballast tanks.........you can sail"

"Sir ... we need 1 hour at surface with ballast tanks empty, to weld the main hull..... you can sail"

(in this two last situations the repair team will be inside the ballast tanks, you can not submerge without to kill them)

"Sir ... we need 3 hors at surface, to weld the main ballast tank, we nedd to work at the exterior of the sub, you can not to sail, we need speed cero "


And recover a part of percent of integrity lossed.........

Just an idea, and may be too later for this Chieff advices, but to recover the hull integrity after sail in surface a few time is posible ...........

Jose.MaC
10-26-2004, 11:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Messervy:
The other day I was thinking about hipotetical scenario:
Your sub lies heavily damaged on the sea bed ( like in Das Boot movie).
You managed to stop the flooding but the boat is to heavy to surface. (das wasser mus raus).
Since you cannot get rid of the water you need to reduce the wight of the boat.
Hipoteticaly you can dump the fuel and fire the torpedoes?
I know it is a far fetched idea but in theory it should work. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fuel is lighter than water. You're interested of have as much as you can, instead of dumping. After all, is a sub not an airplane!

SailorSteve
10-26-2004, 01:22 PM
Well, if you dumped fuel and didn't replace it with water, it would theoretically lighten the boat. The only problem I see is, why would a submarine have a system for pumping fuel out in the first place.

TASKFORCE1x1
10-26-2004, 02:57 PM
With damage to any sub the chief engineer should be able to suggest and relay how deep the sub can go if any depth for that matter. When the sub is damaged and a leak gets worse at a certain depth I would be happy to just have our AI to suggest by and written on the damage screen blueprints not to proceed any further to the new depth. Maybe this could be more realistic.

Jose.MaC
10-26-2004, 03:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SailorSteve:
Well, if you dumped fuel and didn't replace it with water, it would theoretically lighten the boat. The only problem I see is, why would a submarine have a system for pumping fuel out in the first place. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you have such a powerful pump to create vacuum in the fuel storage, you can use inside the sub, to pump outside the water :P

I remember than in USA subs the fuel was being substitued by sea water when being used, to keep the level. If german subs have the same system, dumping fuel outside would just decrease bouyanci.

TASKFORCE1x1
10-26-2004, 03:03 PM
The deeper you go the less effective your pumps will become. You can have a minor leak in the sub that your pumps can keep up with but the deeper you go the more difficult it becomes for your pumps to have to work.

Frank_Torpex
10-26-2004, 05:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Redwine:
Wel, if you read that i wrote, i am not saiding you can recover the total hull integrity, sea is not a good repair center, i wrote, you loss 80 % and with repairs you can recover 50 % not all 80 % lossed........

A small fisure in the hull can be repaired with "weld" (is that the name in english ?), and may be after this you will not able to rech max crush depth..........

But in SH2 repairs in the hull are not cosidered.........

About packages, "O"Rings, joins, gaskets, internal tubes............. I think so they are managed by the Flooding damage condition........... and not related with the external hull integrity......... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand now better what you wrote. I agree that SH2 was foolish in the way it dealt with "Hull Integrity". Thats why I say that in order for Damage control to be closer to reality, calling it "water tight integrity" and having various input factors such as hull fittings, hull damage, hatches giving an input to the subs water tight integrity is closer to reality. Know this, many a submarine sank because a hull fitting ( 1" or greater) ruptured making the boat too heavy to surface. So having a good hull is not always the thing that will keep ypu alive. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Frank

CB..
10-26-2004, 06:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TASKFORCE1x1:
With damage to any sub the chief engineer should be able to suggest and relay how deep the sub can go if any depth for that matter. When the sub is damaged and a leak gets worse at a certain depth I would be happy to just have our AI to suggest by and written on the damage screen blueprints not to proceed any further to the new depth. Maybe this could be more realistic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

definitely ..the beauty of this approach is that nothing needs to be changed...other than the graphic/text read out for hull integrity..

it's exactly the same result....allways hoping of course the game models a proportionate increase in flooding at different hull damage and decreased maximum safe depth etc(i hope!! after all if this is not modelled then it's a bit daft having it in the game at all? hull integrity?, if it doesn't mean what it says? is a useless game feature)

so substituting a recommended maximum safe maximum depth for the hull integrity figure
is much more interesting and realistic (?)
and involves the same process programming wise ....only difference is the way this figure is displayed in the game..simple matter of changing the text (?)

after all if the safe maximum depth is zero your dead...it's exactly the same thing..if the original hull damage figure was 30% then the maximum safe depth estimate would be 70% of the undamaged max depth and so on..just a different use of the same calculation

at least it gives you something to think about; using the safe max depth figure as a guestimate of the over-all sea worthy-ness of your boat; and a tactical consideration regarding the depth limitations at various damaged percentages gets included for free at no extra cost (??)

\a hull integrity figure does nothing to enhance the game (by its-self)
other than act as a rather out of place "life bar" i reckon it's just to concrete a figure to un wavering..and to certain and precise a definition (in the game) of your "health" , for a betetr experience this should be at least an estimate of hull integrity with the possibility of error either way (10% either way?) to create tension , risk and extra atmosphere..?


how many games do we all know that rely heavily on the use of a health bar ( hull integrity is identical to this in fact as far as the game is concerned at least it was in SH2)

how would the gameplay and atmosphere be altered in those games by the simple hiding of those health bars?....the tension; difficulty and resource management would be greatly enhanced

it's a hang over from arcade shooters i reckon..

Frank_Torpex
10-27-2004, 04:03 PM
I believe one "element" that pushes me to look for "really good" damage control elements in a sub sim is that I am a submariner so I understand the tatical relevancy between fighting the enemy and fighting damage. Subsims overall do do a very good job of recreating the tatical enviroment, heck the US Navy used Janes 688I with its Junior Officers-eventually phasing it out for a more "classified" version, so that says something.

What bugs me is that those U-Boat Commanders really had to understand their boats, and alot of the stuff that went into them, where we do not. We have little meters and such. I just hoped that they would put more emphasis on the CO understanding his U-Boat better. I know in a few tank sims, and flight sims damage modeling went into some detail. That personal knowledge of your vessel is what I hope to see. I am not trying to beat on the Dev team about a meter, I just hope it works well. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Frank

one.zero
12-24-2004, 11:35 PM
Here is the link to a new thread about hull penatration sealing techiniques that were disucssed in this thread...

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=857101043&m=3391012652&r=3391012652#3391012652

Yarrick_
12-25-2004, 04:18 AM
I think this health-meter would be disconnectable.

I remember than in SH-2 this hull-integrity could get better if you surfaced.

This would probably dissaper in high difficulty, then you would only have the-yellow and red compartments. Then they could put a "medium damage, light damage, no damage, etc thing in the place of the hull integrity.

HeibgesU999
12-25-2004, 10:37 AM
Why don't you get a little piece of black electrical tape, and cover the hull integrity meter with the tape so you can't see it.

Charos
12-26-2004, 04:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Messervy:
The other day I was thinking about hipotetical scenario:
Your sub lies heavily damaged on the sea bed ( like in Das Boot movie).
You managed to stop the flooding but the boat is to heavy to surface. (das wasser mus raus).
Since you cannot get rid of the water you need to reduce the wight of the boat.
Hipoteticaly you can dump the fuel and fire the torpedoes?
I know it is a far fetched idea but in theory it should work. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


My first post here so go Gentle on me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

To my Limited Knowledge BOTH Ideas would NOT work. As stated by GertFoebe you would blow the End caps off the Tubes at greater depth if the outer tube doors were opened.

Also the Fuel bunker were external to the Pressure hull and were lightly constructed as they were always kept near the oceans pressure at depth due to water replaceing spent fuel in the bunkers. If it were possible to create an airspace within these tanks they would simply crush as there not designed as a pressure vessel.

Messervy
12-26-2004, 10:29 PM
I shall NOT be Gentle.

To myself that is. Now I see how stupid idea that was. As you can see my knowledge of U-boats is somewhat...ehm feeble to say at least. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif