[DicheBach]

Having played with the mod in 0.53 a good bit now (and now updated to 0.56 and dreading having to manual id ships now) I'd like to offer a few comments/suggestions. As an apprentice developer I know that ideas are worth a dime a dozen, and implementation is worth millions, so to the extent I'm able, I'm willing to try to help with anything. I reckon you guys do not have access to the source code (a real shame, but meh, I guess Ubisoft still stands to make good money on the game, not to mention SH5 and SH6 too . . . cannot blame them for protecting their IP) so I realize there are bound to be certain limitations. All that said, some comments/suggetsions:

1. Harbors are generally poorly protected. In my longest running campaign so far (up through about Aug '42) I sank something like 12 ships totaling in the 50k tons ballpark just by cruising into some harbors and lining up "cannot fail" shots. Invariably half these shots failed (so the dud/stochastics of torpedos seems about right) but nonetheless, at the cost of 3 to 4 torps per boa on average, I was getting high rates of kills. Easily 4 times what seemed to be tallying up in the radio reports from other skippers.

The harbors where this was quite effective were: Kushiro, Saipan, Garapan, Urakawa and (if memory sreves) Myakazi. On the way to hit these places I also sank quite a few other ships, so it wasn't like this was all I did. But as you can see: not prime homeland bases, and some not even home islands (Saipan and Garapan). It may be that if I were to try this in Osaka, Hiroshima, Tokyo, etc. I would not be so lucky, but I haven't done that yet (starting a new career now).

If memory serves, sound detection devices were a standard feature at even the smallest of ports, so attacking a port was necessarily a risky venture. While it is true the IJN had a shortage of long-legged ASW ships that could tag along with task forces and merchant convoys, I believe they did have plenty of 2nd and 3rd string boats that either had hydrophones and depth charge racks, or could have easily been outfitted with them. Even a veritable dinghy with a top speed of 12 knots would at least pose some protective benefit. I'd have to dig up details on exact designs, and numbers of such boats, but I have the capacity to do that if it is desired, the upshot of all this being: most IJN harbors should have at least some additional ASW protection, even the hinterlands. Perhaps it would only be 75% coverage but I get the impression that, right now all the smaller peripheral ports are effectively unprotected.

Having sub-chasers, much less destroyers at every single port (which I believe TMO did?) seems to be taking "realism" too far in the other direction. IJN ASW resources were never abundant as far as I'm aware, but there was at least _some_ degree of ASW capacity at most ports where any ships of note might make a call.

2. Escort computer opponents (CO) are too aggressive in closing to point-blank / depth charge range, and do not make effective use of their guns while their target is surfaced. I don't know the details of all the boats, but I reckon most of the destroyers that would be used in escort roles, and even the subchasers must have guns that are capable of 9 or 10,000 yard shots, if not 16k. Nonetheless, they rarely seem to open fire until about 4,500 or 5,000 and what they spend most of their time doing is closing the distance head on toward their target--effectively reducing them to one or even "half" of a gun depending on how effective the front turret is at shooting straight ahead (I see that many of their designs had a distinct up turn on the bow so I'm not sure). What they obviously seem to strive for, across the board is to get close and either shoot at point-blank range (which they are not really that effective at anyway), ram the sub/force it to dive and then pelter it with depth-charges. If sub behaves "normally" and dives at nearly the first sight of an ASW equipped warship, this script makes sense. But when the sub does NOT dive and engages the convoy with the deck gun, this script does not make sense. Indeed, if the sub is doing a lot of shooting, attempting to close the distance at all may not be wise because it evens the odds to some extent: while the DD is closing rapidly he is limited to only about as much firepower as the sub can dish back at him. While it is true that the destroyer is presumably a bit more durable and may have a higher caliber front turret (and/or a multi-barrel turret) it is also true that the destroyer has a much higher profile above water line and is in some respects a "sitting duck" if the sub skipper is ballsy/cheeky enough not to dive when doctrine would suggest that is the sane thing to do.

Instead, what escorts really should do is move away from the merchants they are protecting at an oblique angle (so that over shots at them have as low chance as possible of hitting a merchant instead) and begin a series of maneuvers that allows them to make use of their advantage in number (if not effectiveness and accuracy) of guns. This means approaching the sub at an oblique angle (not head on and not at a right angle); I would guess that, in generally a course that is somewhere between 25 to 35 if the sub is moving away or 100 to 110 if it is closing should allow most of the guns to engage while also closing distance (assuming 0 is parallel to the subs course with the approach DDing going in the same direction as the sub, 90 is perpendicular and 180 is parallel heading at the subs bow). Speed should be maintained at a moderate pace, if possible slightly faster than the sub seems to be going.

If the sub submerges, then switching to the standard "barge right 'em and stuff depth charges down his periscope shaft" script makes sense.

Even without any tweaking of IJN computer-opponent destroyer gunnery that sort of change in destoyers might make them a bit more effective.

None of this may be possible to implement and if so, my apologies for lengthy but pointless post.