Sinking neutral ships
 

I'm reading Clay Blair's "Hitler's U-boat War" now (fourth or fifth time - one of the best book about U-boats ever written in my opinion) and I always wanted to know why in SH3/GWX we are punished for sinking neutral ships. German Uboats sinked many neutral ships without any problems from BdU (or with minor problems) during WW2 and Kaleun's lists of sink were increased by neutral BRT as same as hostile.

Hitler allowed attacks on neutral ships coming from America more so Russian Tankers in 1940, the U-Boats had to make it look like they struck a mine so they could get away with it.

I think NYGM "cloned" ships so that in convoys you could sink them. I dont know why GWX hasnt done this.

Because doing so would nearly double the size of the GWX download. Heavy price for little return.

Doing so would also likely double the loading times. We feel that if we must increase the loading times that we'd rather do it using completely new units.

You are not heavily punished for sinking neutrals in GWX... but you do get enough "punishment" to reflect that the world frowns on such practices.

Though sinkings of neutral ships did happen in RL... it did not happen every ten minutes... It was uncommon.

It is also irresponsible IMHO to indiscriminantly sink targets without identifying them.

Footnote: I recommend doing nothing more than enjoying the view if you happen across a hospital ship.;)

Hi!

U-boats did indeed sink many neutral ships during World War II. Sometimes there was a problem, such as when Mexico declared war on Germany after Kapitänleutnant Reinhard "Teddy" Suhren in U-564 sank the Mexican tanker in Portrero de Llano May, 1942. At other times there were not, as when neutral ships were sunk while traveling in escorted convoys, or if an aggrieved country felt it was less damaging to suffer occasional predation by U-boats rather than risk general war with Germany.

One reason for this apparent discrepancy was that neutral ships sailing in a convoy protected by warships of a belligerent power were not considered "neutral" from the standpoint of the Hague Conventions, but neutral ships sailing alone and illuminated were considered "neutral." For example, Mexico claimed as casus belli the fact that the tanker that Kapitänleutnant Suhren sank was illuminated, though Suhren claimed it was not illuminated; on the other hand, Kapitänleutnant Erich Topp (U-552) sank the (ostensibly) neutral destroyer USS Reuben James in October 1941 without penalty because U.S. warships were acting as belligerents, although sinking U.S. merchant ships sailing alone was forbidden.

Stock Silent Hunter III treats any neutral ship as a neutral ship, regardless of whether it is in an escorted convoy or traveling alone. In game terms, it penalizes a player for sinking every possible target in sight without checking its flag to see to which country it belongs.

GWX simulates real life as far as possible by having a few illuminated ships that are used only by countries are currently neutral, but creating an illuminated "neutral" version of every merchant ship would be a lot of work as well as adding a lot of ships (and size) to GWX. The U.S. situation would also be fairly complex towards the end of 1941, with "hostile" warships and "neutral" merchant ships. Yikes! :o

Pablo

An easy way to get around the negative renown for sinking neutral ships is to edit the Cfg files. I usually set the renown to zero for neutral ships. That way you don't get penalised but you also don't get any rewards. I feel it's a good compromise given the limitations of the game that Kpt and Pablo explained above.

I disagree with tweaking the renown :nope:
Sinking a neutral is a war crime :yep:
Many of the neutrals sunk were carrying women and children :yep:
Mistakes do happen in times of war...but sometimes just a little more attention to detail by the sub might have avoided such senseless waste of life...it's not as if the neutral was attacking the sub and a rushed/pressurised decision was called for :nope:
Heavy loss of renown in-game is the least one should expect :arrgh!:

I think we will agree to disagree in this one Jim. I feel that sinking neutrals was fair game (as fair as sinking ships and killing people it can be) as long as they were inside exclusion zones, carrying cargo for the oposing sides etc. If any of the neutral cargos wanted to be left alone (having passengers on board for example) they could either have a Red Cross on them, or ask for speical passage. In any case it doesn't really matter. It's just a game and in my opinion the altering in renown reflects the Prize Rules that all countries followed (some more than others it needs to be said ;) ) during the war.
Enjoy the game however you like it. That's my view :D

Well, no offense is meant to anyone, but concerning implementation in the un-modified GWX mod files, it will remain as a "negative" experience for the player.;)

No offence taken Kpt. We all agree that for the general public GWX has to be versitile. That's the beauty of it. You can do small changes that allow the individual to customise the game. GWX Rocks :up: (with or without negative renown ;) :p :rotfl: )

I am shocked mel :o
This kind of viewpoint/opinion is certainly out of sync with the UN/peacemaker image :lol:

Sinking neutrals was then and still is now akin/similar to an illegal act/war crime as defined in every interpretation of the the Geneva Convention :yep:

IMHO the very least GWX can do to penalise the player is to set a 'negative renown' tariff against the transgressor :arrgh!:

Not really mate. UN/peacemaker is a good thing, but when war breaks out you have to win ;) :lol:
It actually depends on the cargo the ship is carrying and on its position. If it carries valuables cargo to the enemy, or it is inside the exclusion zone it is legal to sink it. Obviously you need to provide for the crew as well, but nevertheless sinking it is legal.

Well....you go on sinking em and I'll save the women and children an early bath ;)

PMS detected in this thread. :roll:
And Im not talking about pepperoni mushrooms and sausage.

"Sinking neutral ships" does sound neutral, no pun intended. But jaxa did then point out a sh3/gwx question. Stock game has a negative default attribute as a penalty. Not to mention now you have a new enemy for 24 hours or some jazz. Glad pablo addressed this. I am aware of no 'mod' that actually changes this to a neutral state, it is therefore the players call to change that, if they are comfortable making the edit for themselves. If the question was how to change this then a different question or "search" would reveal an easy answer and at least a few other threads covering neutrals.

Certainly seems like the modders are more uptight about their files being edited then the players being upset about neutral ships in convoys. And perhaps they have a right to be considering the work done for free. I certainly wouldn't want work I did re-edited then distributed that way. But then again I don't belive that is the point. The question basically was why the punishment in the game, which was answered.

Pray tell Kaleun would you kindly explain what you mean by 'PMS' ?
I am not familiar with such a term or the use of such jargon. :hmm: