-
Member
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.
-
Senior Member
<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'.
-
Senior Member
<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! 
-
Member
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?
-
Member
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.
-
Member
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>
-
Member
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).
-
Senior Member
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.
-
Member
Sounds to me that the only way to satisfy everyone is to make this a realism option.
-
Member
<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.
