S-boats

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Edit: Sydney to Canberra. Portions of that trip are fuzzy . . .

Alas it seems you got bit by a similar spider or snake...I understand they are quite nasty in those parts.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Edit: Sydney to Canberra. Portions of that trip are fuzzy . . .

Alas it seems you got bit by a similar spider or snake...I understand they are quite nasty in those parts.

No, but USAF nurses bite sometimes. And it can be pretti nasti. [:)]

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: dwg
I disagree with your emphasis. "anecdotes and apocrypha" are easy to dismiss, but that's anecdotes and apocrypha, there is a considerable amount of data out there from first class authors using original source material that shouldn't be dismissed so lightly. If the source is known to be reliable and is not contradicted by better sources, why ignore it? The only 'rational, relational, relationship' that ultimately matters is 'to the best of the field's collective knowledge, X is true'.

IRL isn't simply 'fun', it is the measure by which a model or simulation is judged. So if the sources I trust say that the truth was X, and the model says Y, then, as you say, that's what the editor is for.

Well, that's exactly the point isn't it. What is a better source? Is it Lenton, Friedman, Gardiner/Chesneau, Polmar, Roscoe, Milton, USN BuShips, USN TechSpec series TS-1400, all of which say 14/15 and 10/11, or Samuel Elliot Morrison who says 10.

Morrison is a highly respected historian, but he is not universally knowledgeable. Where he is out of step with everyone else, one is entitled to question the possible sources of his apparent discontinuity. That is the fundamental basis of historical analysis.

There are a gazillion reasons why Morrison might have said S-boats had a top speed of 10 knots. Most of them anecdotal and apochryphal; some of them technical - "standard" speed at "standard" revolutions was indeed 10 knots. A man, amassing an historical record of the scope of Morrison's, is likely to make some simplifications, based, yes, on anecdotes and apochrypha. It doesn't make him wrong, it just means his text should be taken in context by thoughtful analysis.

[Hotschi]

About sources/historians/editors "getting it wrong", it's amazing how many respected authors make errors, here's just two examples;

.) Clay Blair Jr., in "Silent Victory", calls the British battleship Valiant a "cruiser" (page 629).

.) John Costello, in "The Pacific War 1941-1945", calls the US destroyer Perkins a "cruiser" - not to mention how often he confuses east and west [X(] in his book - he set the launch location of the Doolitle-Raid as 600 miles WEST of Honshu...

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Hotschi
About sources/historians/editors "getting it wrong", it's amazing how many respected authors make errors,

Many historical books make errors. Some are editorial typos, some are just contextual mix-ups. That doesn't invalidate the historians, however. Historians take a broad view of their subject matter and need to be read in terms of their analytical context.

Technical issues are not necessarily in the province of the historian, so relying on an historian for technical specifications can lead to a problemetic result. Some, of course, write from a very technical perspective, and they must be evaluated within the appropriate context. It all devolves down to critical historical analysis. It's a rule of reason that says intelligent auditors are just as smart as authors.

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: dwg
I disagree with your emphasis. "anecdotes and apocrypha" are easy to dismiss, but that's anecdotes and apocrypha, there is a considerable amount of data out there from first class authors using original source material that shouldn't be dismissed so lightly. If the source is known to be reliable and is not contradicted by better sources, why ignore it? The only 'rational, relational, relationship' that ultimately matters is 'to the best of the field's collective knowledge, X is true'.

IRL isn't simply 'fun', it is the measure by which a model or simulation is judged. So if the sources I trust say that the truth was X, and the model says Y, then, as you say, that's what the editor is for.

Well, that's exactly the point isn't it. What is a better source? Is it Lenton, Friedman, Gardiner/Chesneau, Polmar, Roscoe, Milton, USN BuShips, USN TechSpec series TS-1400, all of which say 14/15 and 10/11, or Samuel Elliot Morrison who says 10.

Morrison is a highly respected historian, but he is not universally knowledgeable. Where he is out of step with everyone else, one is entitled to question the possible sources of his apparent discontinuity. That is the fundamental basis of historical analysis.

There are a gazillion reasons why Morrison might have said S-boats had a top speed of 10 knots. Most of them anecdotal and apochryphal; some of them technical - "standard" speed at "standard" revolutions was indeed 10 knots. A man, amassing an historical record of the scope of Morrison's, is likely to make some simplifications, based, yes, on anecdotes and apochrypha. It doesn't make him wrong, it just means his text should be taken in context by thoughtful analysis.

Morrison is respected for the breadth of his work more than his depth. There is just no compariable work to History of United States Naval Operations in WWII. That said, there are some pretty glaring errors. His account of the Savo Island debacle is distorted to say the least. That is understandable as he was a US Naval officer after all. Also, that series was more geared toward portraying the operational not technical side of the war.

Certainly, Morrison is not unique in this. Some one once posted on the forum the follwoing regarding WWII Histories: "We see books that devote only a few pages to the entire Buna Campaign while devoting entire chapters to one miscaluation of the tides in the Gilberts by Marine planners. (sorry for no attribution but I cannot recall who said that)

Point being that every one has an axe to grind when it comes to history. That is why depending on multiple sources will get the best picture of any facet of the war. So, I agree with those that point out that a single source that is out of line with the broader body of sources should be taken with a grain of salt.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: dwg
I disagree with your emphasis. "anecdotes and apocrypha" are easy to dismiss, but that's anecdotes and apocrypha, there is a considerable amount of data out there from first class authors using original source material that shouldn't be dismissed so lightly. If the source is known to be reliable and is not contradicted by better sources, why ignore it? The only 'rational, relational, relationship' that ultimately matters is 'to the best of the field's collective knowledge, X is true'.

IRL isn't simply 'fun', it is the measure by which a model or simulation is judged. So if the sources I trust say that the truth was X, and the model says Y, then, as you say, that's what the editor is for.

Well, that's exactly the point isn't it. What is a better source? Is it Lenton, Friedman, Gardiner/Chesneau, Polmar, Roscoe, Milton, USN BuShips, USN TechSpec series TS-1400, all of which say 14/15 and 10/11, or Samuel Elliot Morrison who says 10.

Morrison is a highly respected historian, but he is not universally knowledgeable. Where he is out of step with everyone else, one is entitled to question the possible sources of his apparent discontinuity. That is the fundamental basis of historical analysis.

There are a gazillion reasons why Morrison might have said S-boats had a top speed of 10 knots. Most of them anecdotal and apochryphal; some of them technical - "standard" speed at "standard" revolutions was indeed 10 knots. A man, amassing an historical record of the scope of Morrison's, is likely to make some simplifications, based, yes, on anecdotes and apochrypha. It doesn't make him wrong, it just means his text should be taken in context by thoughtful analysis.

Morrison is respected for the breadth of his work more than his depth. There is just no compariable work to History of United States Naval Operations in WWII. That said, there are some pretty glaring errors. His account of the Savo Island debacle is distorted to say the least. That is understandable as he was a US Naval officer after all. Also, that series was more geared toward portraying the operational not technical side of the war.

Certainly, Morrison is not unique in this. Some one once posted on the forum the follwoing regarding WWII Histories: "We see books that devote only a few pages to the entire Buna Campaign while devoting entire chapters to one miscaluation of the tides in the Gilberts by Marine planners. (sorry for no attribution but I cannot recall who said that)

Point being that every one has an axe to grind when it comes to history. That is why depending on multiple sources will get the best picture of any facet of the war. So, I agree with those that point out that a single source that is out of line with the broader body of sources should be taken with a grain of salt.

I agree that the use of one anecdote is problematic...however what should one conclude if one finds a growing number of anecdotes contradict the technical specs?

We see a similar situation in history when one looks at the Mark XIV torpedo. Spec said that the torpedo should do X, Y and Z....anecdotal evidence provided by skippers said otherwise.

------

Obviously code isn't going to change - so we as modders have only one option available to us - tweaking data. My original post questioned what other data points impacted a submarines ability to engage a target... I asked whether the speed of the sub made a difference and suggested that the the S-boats perhaps should be rated with a slower speed. The same perhaps could apply to a number of other sub types as well. The two anecdotes presented named a number of issues with the S-boats that impacted the boats performance...even if the diesels were in good condition and the hull was clean...none of these issues are necessarrily represented by the data points available to us.

As near as I can tell the only options really available to the modder in regards to subs are to change speed, endurance, durability and/or maneuver...or change the weapon system the subs carry...which could impact other vessels as well.

Modders use any number of tricks to compensate for deficiencies in the code. So in the case of the S-boat, even though it was technically rated for 14/15 and 10/11, perhaps due to the other operational problems not represented by the data points available to us, the boat code be rated a tad slower to reflect these other operational problems that made the boats obsolescent .

-----

As an aside - one thing I would like to see is the amount of system damage that is accumulated on a cruise be impacted by the type and age of the vessel (although I do not think launch dates are part of the data set, unless you can use availability)...ie the older the ship the more easily system damage accumulates...requiring more frequent trips to the yards to refit.

The same could apply to aircraft - such that as the war drags on, older aircraft types accumulate aircraft damage and fatigue more readily than the newer types available.

-----

Anyhoo --- no need for anyone to get in a tizzy. Just explorin' history here...

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: treespider
I agree that the use of one anecdote is problematic...however what should one conclude if one finds a growing number of anecdotes contradict the technical specs?

We see a similar situation in history when one looks at the Mark XIV torpedo. Spec said that the torpedo should do X, Y and Z....anecdotal evidence provided by skippers said otherwise.

That's not relevant Spidey and you know it. You are erecting a straw man, and a poor one at that. I thought better of you. Well, live and learn.

[vettim89]

One place where TS is spot on is the reliability of the S-Boats. I read the DANFS entries for each of them and they spent a lot of time at suboptimal operating efficiency due to there age. While the MkX TT did work, there really went all that many successes. There were also numerous mentions of being unable to engage targets because they were unable to keep up with them

Still, that is a code change issue and unlikely to be fixed with a DB alteration

[dwg]

ORIGINAL: JWE
Well, that's exactly the point isn't it. What is a better source?

Ultimately one we as individuals consider to be the best source for that individual data point, bearing in mind general trustworthiness of the source, corroboration from other sources and the soundness of related data in the same work. But ultimately we still have to decide for ourselves. I know an in-depth article that is probably the best in the field on its subject, but contains an absolutely glaring error. Many people won't know the subject well enough to notice it, some with better knowledge might notice and say that makes the whole piece suspect, but seeing as it's a subject I happened to be personally involved with, I know that it's solely that one data point it gets wrong. So I'll discount that one fact, but not the whole piece. In other areas where the data isn't something I can personally attest to, I need to depend on the consensus of opinion from people whose views I respect, but for our own purposes is that so very wrong?

I'm reading DK Brown's 'Warrior to Dreadnought' at the moment, in a couple of the footnotes he points out instances where the data in the Ship's Cover recorded during the design process clearly contradicts the later account of the ship's designer. Which do we trust? There's always going to be the chance that someone will find an original source document that contradicts accepted wisdom, there's always going to be a chance that what was written down at the time wasn't the same as what was actually done. No source can be assumed to be perfect, but it can be assumed to be the best based on everything else we know.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: JWE

... A hull is a hull, is a hull, is a hull, and if you grave it, it's just like it came out of the yard. An engine, is an engine, is an engine, and if you maintain/rebuild to specs, it's just like it came out of the box. What is it about a ship that's supposed to wear out? Yes, some will flex and rust to death, but there are still well maintained Hog-Island freighters giving good service, today, almost 100 years later.

I agree with this observation but there is one naval asset that does get worn out.[:)]

Sure it is a boat and not a ship, and I can't see how it could be taken into account with the current game engine, thus it doesn't really contradict JWE's point but...

As subs get older, the wear and tear on their hull from water pressure whilst submerged, degrades their maximum safety diving depth.

Luckily, AE is an abstraction and we don't have to worry about the length of service prior to 1941 of each individual S class sub and adjust accordingly each boat's individual durability/diving depth.[X(]

Alfred

[witpqs]

I agree that, in theory, AE would be a better simulation with additional factors built in. The key is "in theory". A maintenance rating for ships. Maybe even individual maintenance ratings for each ship to track stress on the hull - we could come up with a zillion of these things for ships, planes, tanks... but would it really make the game (as an historical simulator) any better? I have doubts. But that doesn't matter, because it could only happen as part of a re-write/total over-haul. I really don't think tweaking the S-boat stats would be for the best. They already all or almost all get withdrawn by a certain date as recognition of their obsolescence.

[Alfred]

I fully agree, witpqs. There is most definitely a finite limit to how much tactical elements can be introduced into a game like AE. The more tactical is introduced, the more micro management is introduced for no real corresponding gain. I was merely trying to point out how ludricous it could get if we were trying to factor everything in a game which is not a simulation.

Alfred

[dwg]

ORIGINAL: Alfred
a game which is not a simulation.

?! I think we have differing definitions of game and simulation. In my definitions they are definitely overlapping sets, and WITP and it's ilk sit right in the middle of that overlap.

I'll admit I probably come at things from a relatively uncommon perspective, not really interested in competitive play and more in the simulation aspects, with background in both engineering and operational research (though I've never put the latter into practice outside of gaming), and hobby interests in both history, alternative history and never-wheres. Adding extra factors such as ship reliability (and remember we do have aircraft reliability as a factor) may not interest everyone, but they do interest me. Maintenance, good, bad or indifferent, may not seem like a particularly interesting subject to most, but when you look at it in terms of, for instance, the interwar maintance of British battleships it becomes absolutely fascinating, and something with real strategic effects in the conduct of the war - such as accounts of the Admiralty trying to use the Royal Sovereigns, while simultaneously keeping 1000nm between them and any enemy.

Maybe some things can't be added to the game, maybe they wouldn't interest most, but that doesn't mean they don't interest some of us and can't be discussed as potential inputs to some theoretical next generation game.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Alfred
I agree with this observation but there is one naval asset that does get worn out.[:)]

Sure it is a boat and not a ship, and I can't see how it could be taken into account with the current game engine, thus it doesn't really contradict JWE's point but...

As subs get older, the wear and tear on their hull from water pressure whilst submerged, degrades their maximum safety diving depth.

Luckily, AE is an abstraction and we don't have to worry about the length of service prior to 1941 of each individual S class sub and adjust accordingly each boat's individual durability/diving depth.[X(]

Alfred

Yep. Simple metal fatigue does cause things to degrade. For ships as well as boats. Problem, I guess, is I'm addressing things in terms of what kinds of stuff are tweakable in the data base. Thinking in terms of how to adapt the variables that are actually available in the game in order to better model game performance. The abstractions are actually quite reasonable, in broad, but necessarily require trying to simultaneously juggle four or five separate handfuls of Jello. I'm not arguing IRL. I'm not even really talking about IRL. I'm trying to make observations about a game system, it's underlying data structure, and how the two might work more effectively together, with IRL as nothing more than a boundary condition.

Wish we had a shoot load more degrees of freedom, but ... life happens.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

I fully agree, witpqs. There is most definitely a finite limit to how much tactical elements can be introduced into a game like AE. The more tactical is introduced, the more micro management is introduced for no real corresponding gain. I was merely trying to point out how ludricous it could get if we were trying to factor everything in a game which is not a simulation.

Alfred

I know - I was answering multiple posters. BTW, I see AE as a simulation as much as a game. How close it can get (with appropriate player input) to something life-like is of course open to interpretation. It's a high level simulation.

[inqistor]

Hey! that hull degradation seems quite interesting!
Easy way to implement, will be to subtract few points during every ship upgrade. That would probably result in slightly more damages (and, as a result - more shipyard time), but I do not think it will be more, than around 5%.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Alfred

I fully agree, witpqs. There is most definitely a finite limit to how much tactical elements can be introduced into a game like AE. The more tactical is introduced, the more micro management is introduced for no real corresponding gain. I was merely trying to point out how ludricous it could get if we were trying to factor everything in a game which is not a simulation.

Alfred

I know - I was answering multiple posters. BTW, I see AE as a simulation as much as a game. How close it can get (with appropriate player input) to something life-like is of course open to interpretation. It's a high level simulation.

Despite, what JWE claims, I seriously doubt anything was done to balance forces for better gameplay, so it IS a simulation. It is hard to say, people playing WITPAE for beautiful graphics [:D]
The problem is not, how much elements are introduced, but how much of them are under player control. If you can choose, what ammo your ships use, it is real PITA, but if guns have different ammo characteristics, but your only choice is WHICH ship you can send on mission, it is just curiosity, because your decision possibility is based on statistics, which you can not influence.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Hey! that hull degradation seems quite interesting!
Easy way to implement, will be to subtract few points during every ship upgrade. That would probably result in slightly more damages (and, as a result - more shipyard time), but I do not think it will be more, than around 5%.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Alfred

I fully agree, witpqs. There is most definitely a finite limit to how much tactical elements can be introduced into a game like AE. The more tactical is introduced, the more micro management is introduced for no real corresponding gain. I was merely trying to point out how ludricous it could get if we were trying to factor everything in a game which is not a simulation.

Alfred

I know - I was answering multiple posters. BTW, I see AE as a simulation as much as a game. How close it can get (with appropriate player input) to something life-like is of course open to interpretation. It's a high level simulation.

Despite, what JWE claims, I seriously doubt anything was done to balance forces for better gameplay, so it IS a simulation. It is hard to say, people playing WITPAE for beautiful graphics [:D]
The problem is not, how much elements are introduced, but how much of them are under player control. If you can choose, what ammo your ships use, it is real PITA, but if guns have different ammo characteristics, but your only choice is WHICH ship you can send on mission, it is just curiosity, because your decision possibility is based on statistics, which you can not influence.

I guess you missed the part I just put in bold for you. [8D]

[inqistor]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I guess you missed the part I just put in bold for you. [8D]

That was general digression, but I completely agree with your post.

Should I first wrote:
I completely agree!

[;)]?

[DuckofTindalos]

Since "inqistor" was not part of the development team, his doubts about the process are irrelevant. He'll have to take JWE's word for it.