A few new ideas - Page 11

devnull · 02-13-24, 04:14 PM

I am starting to question the accuracy of this thread’s title, maybe it’s time to stick the word “dozen” or “score” after “few” 🤣

Fidd · 02-13-24, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by devnull

I am starting to question the accuracy of this thread’s title, maybe it’s time to stick the word “dozen” or “score” after “few” ��

I may have got carried away...

Seriously though, once I started putting a few down, they just kept coming. I never expected to still be having ideas at this stage. many of course resulted from conversations with other players.

devnull · 02-14-24, 01:49 AM

I’m just teasing you… keep ‘em coming 🙌

Fidd · 02-15-24, 12:56 PM

125. Smoke from diesels varying detection-range.

To add to the workload of the engine-room crew when surfaced, it might be good if it became more important for the amount and colour of smoke from the diesels affected the detection-range at which the u-boat is spotted. This would make it more important for machinists to ensure they had optimal "blue-flames" at all times, when operating the diesels. It might also mean commanders were more inclined to make the final approach towards the convoy on the e-motor, thus drawing down the battery more. Both would add content for the engineer/machinists, as well as making detection-ranges more "fuzzy" (rather than the "digital" - if I'm outside 2200m [or whatever it is] then "I cannot be detected").

I suggest that making a lot of smoke from diesels being badly de-tuned, increase the detection range by 200-300m or so at night, and 600-900m in daylight?

Fidd · 02-15-24, 01:02 PM

126. Add three-letter group to beginning of typed text, denoting current role. EG:

CAP - Captain
HEL - Helmsman
DO - Dive Officer
RAD - Radioman
NAV - Navigator
MAC - Machinist
CE - Chief Engineer

Examples:

"CE: Fidd: Do you need the batteries recharged?"

"CAP: Bloggz: not yet, I'll ring it when ready for recharge.."

A similar routine could be added for ingame voice, whereby the role of the person speaking is visible whilst their speech is audible.

Both of these would help in games where one is unfamiliar with the players, and/or their voices, or for poor English speakers to have better awareness of who is talking or typing.

Fidd · 02-15-24, 01:34 PM

127. "Whisper text"

Text only readable when in the same compartment as the sender.

Purpose: to allow instruction or conversation without causing undue text distraction in other areas of the boat.

"shift/return" to bring up the whisper text buffer?

Fidd · 02-17-24, 02:38 PM

128. Thoughts on aircraft.

The rumour-mill keeps suggesting aircraft may be devved at some point. These obviously have quite considerable potential impacts on the game. I presume that it's a given that their existence in game would be optional as a lobby setting.

Obviously there are Luftwaffe aircraft capable of patrolling and spotting, and indeed attacking a convoy, eg an FW200, or Ju88's, which patrolled Biscay, the FW's being out further in the Atlantic. In a campaign-game, these could be used to both locate, and track a convoy, at least until the advent of escort carriers or steam-catapulted Hurricanes to provide a convoy with the ability to defend itself v enemy aircraft. At the end of the day, outside of a convoy campaign, it's hard to see what they can actually bring to the u-boat game.

Likewise, the various ASW aircraft, eg Sunderlands, Wellingtons, Catalinas and Liberators (also a limited number of B17's) which actively hunted u-boats night and day, with rockets, DC's, FIDO and the like, present a major problem in terms of gameplay, especially at night, as the combination of Leigh-lights, rad-alts and radar means 9 times out of 10 the aircraft will acquire the u-boat before it can dive, and having done so the warning systems on the u-boat will not give directional information to the flak-gunner. So the advantage, especially for a u-boat with a single 20mm cannon, is going to be entirely with the aircraft, until it turns on the Leigh light, after which it'd only have a very few seconds to acquire the target and hit it. It's hard to see how allied aircraft can therefore be introduced into the game with their ASW capabilities, without generating a lot of crash-dives, failure to close with the convoy etc. Especially as the war progresses in date.

It might be viable in the Atlantic "air-gap", as the only (rarely present) viable aircraft operating there are relatively large Sunderlands and Liberators, with the latter not being an especially effective in the ASW role. Both present enormous targets to flak gunners and neither is quick...

Concurrent devving of the Schnorkel may help, however, these were quite limited in the maximum speed they could be operated, and could still - with difficulty - be spotted on an ASR screen, and thence visually. So even with schnorkel use, having planes in game presents enormous challenges to generating good content with allied aircraft being introduced.

That is not to say it cannot be done, merely that it may have to be limited to more of an abstraction, and likely purely within a campaign game. So, you might have an FW200 telling you where a convoy is, and it's mean-course, allowing BDU to direct u-boats to coalesce ahead of that track. Conversely, if some convoys have an escort carrier, then those aircraft would preclude or disrupt the advantage of having an FW200 tracking that convoy, making it, at the campaign-level, harder to locate and intercept it. So aircraft can, within "the campaign" be made to impact the game as an abstraction, rather than something one sees flying about and liable to attack one's u-boat as such...

Manned allied aircraft, especially in the ASR role, suffer from the same gameplay problem as (purely) manned escorts do, namely that endless patrols had to flown, over hundreds of hours a month, and few crews ever saw a u-boat, let alone attacked one, without the advantages of night and radar/searchlights. So I think "rarity" of the experience of being attacked at night by a dedicated (AI) ASR aircraft has to be key here - ie it's something you might play 30 or 40 games (within the campaign) without ever seeing, but if your boat is attacked in this way, one can expect very heavy damage, if not being rapidly sunk. In any event, that'd have to be an optional lobby setting, as one may readily forecast the general wailing and gnashing of teeth consequent from suddenly being greatly damaged or sunk during a game with little or no warning, and still less ability to avoid that fate! It only makes any sense within the context of a campaign-game, where one's aim is to acquire tonnage and survive for a number of sequential missions!

Again within a campaign, the presence of friendly abstracted aircraft, can reduce the chance - a little - of being attacked by an enemy ASR aircraft, or having enemy Hunter-killer groups vectored onto you, however, in practical terms the problem we're left with is that effective counter-measures in behaviour of the u-boat all suck as u-boat gameplay - eg being compelled to recharge in daylight and submerge at night, or, using schnorkels at much lower speeds.

So, the conclusion I'm rapidly coming to is that even in the campaign game, it's still going to be very difficult indeed to implement aircraft in a fashion where one may come and drop DC's on one, without producing sub-optimal gameplay. It might be possible to have a single Catalina or FW200 flying endless orbits around the convoy once in a few games, but otherwise..

As regards informal stand-alone games. There's no scope that I can see for having ASR aircraft in game, if the capabilities are accurately modelled. Unless, they can only damage, rather than sink, the u-boat, thus presenting damage-control content.

I'd be interested to hear other's views, especially dissenting ones, or ideas for how it could be made to work? To my mind, having the experience of seeing a Hunter-killer group come over the horizon (because you've been spotted on the surface) is one thing, being killed with little or no warning, and virtually no scope for reply via flak, at night, is quite another!

I'll leave it there for now, but may edit amend or add further posts on this in the light of other's thoughts and ideas.

Fidd · 02-18-24, 12:21 PM

129. Adjustment to AI gunnery accuracy, and to 3rd party sounds of incoming shells. - and alarm-bells and abandon-ship/death!

I think AI gunnery accuracy needs to be toned down somewhat, so that there are a few close misses/waterspouts/audible incoming shell, and detonation on the water sounds before hits occur. (unless the range is minimal)

Broadly speaking, the ability to land hits should be roughly equal between players firing at a given range with the deck-gun, and that of fire from escorts. One could make a case that fire from armed merchantmen would likely be less accurate, however, as they also provide much more stable gun-platforms, for accurate shooting, relative to firing from a pitching/rolling/yawing u-boat, or a smaller escort, I think a case could be made to keep their AI fire roughly on a par with escorts. In all situations, AI gunfire needs to be more accurate than that achievable by a player at a given range, but not to the current degree?

In order for the crew to be able to react quickly enough, all crew areas need to have the ability to hear alarm bells, which were historically fitted to every compartment in a u-boat excepting the lavatories and possibly the radio/rooms. (Decaf has source material). So, the first order of business is to add alarm-bells (not the switches?) to near the diesel station, and in the e-motor room and forward torpedo room.

The second change could be either reducing the rate of fire, or, preferably, the AI's currently un-erring accuracy, so there's a reasonable chance that a u-boat under shell-fire can at least get under before the 3rd lethal hit, properly handled. It stands to reason that a boat that's been hit is going to take on water, at a pretty considerable rate, but with damage-control (wooden plugs) and suitable bracing, it's reasonable to suppose a u-boat might be able to submerge to very modest depths - circa 20m max - with damage-control, subject to whether the struck area is accessible. IE a hit in the tower would be fairly straight-forwards to stop a leak by penetrating shot, one behind a diesel would be very much less so.

It is right, and proper, I think, that a u-boat detected within 8000 yards or so of an escort should come under fire, and thence very likely asdic search and at least one round of DC's, if not many more. There also needs to be the chance of an unfixable damage being inflicted that results - after a suitable struggle - in the loss of the boat. What I'm questioning here is if the AI is correctly and reasonably configured in shell-fire accuracy.

Which brings me onto what happens when lethal hits/a sinking boat arise. Personally I would like to see the ability for the player (or some of them) to "abandon-ship" if the order is given, and be able to leap off the boat to bob around in the sea for a bit before the end-screen. Those who do not get out having the water level rising within a given compartment before being forced through water-tight doors into neighbouring compartments with losses of lighting etc and rising water. Ideally the u-boat would take on a steep angle commensurate with the flooding, and sink as the physics warrants. Consideration could be given to the inrush of water as the top-hatch submerges preventing players getting up the ladder? All this would make for much more dramatic - and yet still believable - content in the event the u-boat is either damaged, or damaged to the point of sinking. A rather better result than the current "BANG! BANG! BANG!" - endscreen?

Fidd · 02-21-24, 03:09 PM

130. "May I have the password?" / "uboats fielded"

It might be useful if there was a lobby setting whereby a locked-lobby could be:

1.Completely password locked.
2. Locked but allow (single) requests (from any given player) for the password, which the lobby host could accept/deny in much the same way as with joining a boat. Accepting would automatically enter the required password when they next attempt to join that lobby.
3. Locked, except to steam-friends.
4. Unlocked

The above changes would greatly assist in helping to crew, as currently ,with in-game voice being used, rather than discord, it's often hard to contact lobby hosts who have muted discord once they spawn. Understandably, many captains are a little reluctant to leave a lobby completely open, as it tends to lead to all boats being spawned, not infrequently by clueless players who leave u-boats motoring alone and un-crewed.

Which brings me to the next useful lobby switch, which needs to be also controllable from within game, namely the ability to limit the number of uboats spawned, or, to have it limited to one, unless the lobby owner specifically authorises a named player to spawn a 2nd or 3rd or 4th boat. This would allow the lobby owner to control which players assume captaincy of a boat within the lobby, and prevent it when they see fit to do so.

The above changes, in combination, would allow a more flexible use of locking, without unduly preventing new players from getting a game. Indeed they'd be more likely to than currently, because the need for a completely locked lobby would be less, as the host can now control whether or not new players are to spawn a new-boat they're not yet experienced enough to do without causing ructions...

Fidd · 02-24-24, 11:54 PM

131. "Bolt-on events"

a) (10 minutes?) Provisioning. Loading of torpedoes through access hatches, and positioning to under-floor magazine. Filling spare space in the u-boat with crates of food "carried" and placed by moving "bots" crew.

b) (10 minutes?) leaving port, navigating to open sea from u-boat bunker or port. Wave-off from band/well-wishers.

c) (30 minutes?) game play crossing area under possible aircraft attack, night or day (random).

d) (45 minutes?) Enigma message cites position and heading of convoy. Navigator lays off track, plots intercept. When within hydrophone range of convoy, marks bearing and range estimate. Repeats a little later to establish more accurate position and track of convoy. Radio officer sends result to BDU (encrypted), BDU rebroadcasts (encrypted) to all boats. Closure to visual range.

The time between these events is skipped, but any or all can be "bolted on" to a workshop mission. The idea being to create more of a narrative game where there's an opportunity to see and be involved in some of the non-combat tasks. Not as an "every-day" means of playing the game, but as an occasional event or events, to recreate the whole experience.

e) (10 minutes) return to bunker/band etc.

Fidd · 02-25-24, 08:09 PM

132. Emotes (mappable to any key):

Salute (Kriegsmarine!) .sa (self-explanatory)
Laugh .la "
Worried/Cringing .wo "
Grimace .gr "
Shaking fist .sh "
Vomiting .vo "
Cheer .ch "
Snore .zz (avatar lays down and snores)
afk coffee .co (shows avatar with mug in hand until movement)

<please suggest others>

Players rationed to two emotes per game?

Fidd · 02-27-24, 01:13 PM

133. Coloured name tags.

Ideally this would reflect hours played in any given role. If difficult, it should simply reflect hours played in game in total, as recorded on Steam. This colour code would be visible to Captains when accepting players onto their boat, before they click "accept", and to all crew once they're aboard. This would help more experienced players tailor advice to a player whose experience is otherwise an unknown quantity of they've not played together before. It would operate in both senses, in preventing an experienced player from "teaching their grandmother to suck eggs", but also to ensure that a very new player isn't overloaded or yelled at for making a balls of a task!

It might also be possible to vary the apparent age of avatars, with hours played so that inexperienced players have more youthful appearance, and vice versa.

Suggested increments:
Up to 30 hours Red
31 to 100 hours Orange
101 to 300 hours Yellow
301 to 1000 hours Green
1001 hours plus Blue
1001 hours plus. Purple

Fidd · 02-29-24, 10:17 AM

134. Ability for escorts to "make smoke".

After the first torpedo strike on a convoy, escorts could start making smoke. Self-evidently this will not completely obscure the convoy, but it would make observation of the convoy more difficult for follow-up shots, especially from the side, as escorts travel faster than the convoys base speed, during the period of the alert.

Fidd · 03-06-24, 08:00 AM

135. Creeping attacks.

This was a highly effective form of DC attack where 1 escort stood off circa 800m from a u-boat, keeping it pinged with asdic, without actually attacking. A second escort would then be directed to the position of the u-boat by the first, not using asdic, moving at dead slow, and dropping a pattern. The u-boat had no warning other than "splashes", as it only heard the pinging escort.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creeping_attack

It would be interesting if our AI destroyers (and later human operated escorts) were able to work as pairs in this regard, especially if the pinging u-boat of the pair followed up with it's attack once the first boat's charges had detonated...

Fidd · 03-08-24, 07:21 AM

136. No roll option - to prevent nausea.

I find that any perceivable pitch/roll/yaw in the boat - pretty much 3 kts windspeed or above - causes me to become nauseous over time. This is caused by there being a conflict between what I see the boat doing, and the lack of attendant actual movement via the inner ear balance mechanisms. It's essentially the reverse of normal sea-sickness, where one feels the movement, but if below deck, you see no such movement. In both cases it's the conflict between inner-ear and visual references that causes the nausea. (hence the advice to "go up on deck" if ever you are sea-sick on a boat) I doubt I'm alone in this. It would be wonderful if there was an option whereby movement of the boat was able to be suppressed for a player who prefers not to endure this. I fully accept that it's part and parcel of a naval game, and that it's not really on for me to ask a lobby host to always feel the need to dial it back just on my account... Plainly if a player is on the deck or at a periscope, then they'll need the "full roll experience"....

02-13-24, 04:14 PM	#151
devnull Watch Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Germany Posts: 22 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	few? I am starting to question the accuracy of this thread’s title, maybe it’s time to stick the word “dozen” or “score” after “few” 🤣

02-15-24, 01:02 PM	#155
Fidd XO Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Blighty! Posts: 424 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	126. Add three-letter group to beginning of typed text, denoting current role. EG: CAP - Captain HEL - Helmsman DO - Dive Officer RAD - Radioman NAV - Navigator MAC - Machinist CE - Chief Engineer Examples: "CE: Fidd: Do you need the batteries recharged?" "CAP: Bloggz: not yet, I'll ring it when ready for recharge.." A similar routine could be added for ingame voice, whereby the role of the person speaking is visible whilst their speech is audible. Both of these would help in games where one is unfamiliar with the players, and/or their voices, or for poor English speakers to have better awareness of who is talking or typing. Last edited by Fidd; 02-15-24 at 01:16 PM.

02-21-24, 03:09 PM	#159
Fidd XO Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Blighty! Posts: 424 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	130. "May I have the password?" / "uboats fielded" It might be useful if there was a lobby setting whereby a locked-lobby could be: 1.Completely password locked. 2. Locked but allow (single) requests (from any given player) for the password, which the lobby host could accept/deny in much the same way as with joining a boat. Accepting would automatically enter the required password when they next attempt to join that lobby. 3. Locked, except to steam-friends. 4. Unlocked The above changes would greatly assist in helping to crew, as currently ,with in-game voice being used, rather than discord, it's often hard to contact lobby hosts who have muted discord once they spawn. Understandably, many captains are a little reluctant to leave a lobby completely open, as it tends to lead to all boats being spawned, not infrequently by clueless players who leave u-boats motoring alone and un-crewed. Which brings me to the next useful lobby switch, which needs to be also controllable from within game, namely the ability to limit the number of uboats spawned, or, to have it limited to one, unless the lobby owner specifically authorises a named player to spawn a 2nd or 3rd or 4th boat. This would allow the lobby owner to control which players assume captaincy of a boat within the lobby, and prevent it when they see fit to do so. The above changes, in combination, would allow a more flexible use of locking, without unduly preventing new players from getting a game. Indeed they'd be more likely to than currently, because the need for a completely locked lobby would be less, as the host can now control whether or not new players are to spawn a new-boat they're not yet experienced enough to do without causing ructions... Last edited by Fidd; 02-24-24 at 11:27 PM.

02-25-24, 08:09 PM	#161
Fidd XO Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Blighty! Posts: 424 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	132. Emotes (mappable to any key): Salute (Kriegsmarine!) .sa (self-explanatory) Laugh .la " Worried/Cringing .wo " Grimace .gr " Shaking fist .sh " Vomiting .vo " Cheer .ch " Snore .zz (avatar lays down and snores) afk coffee .co (shows avatar with mug in hand until movement) <please suggest others> Players rationed to two emotes per game? Last edited by Fidd; 02-26-24 at 07:20 PM.

02-14-24, 01:49 AM	#153
devnull Watch Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Germany Posts: 22 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I’m just teasing you… keep ‘em coming 🙌

02-15-24, 12:56 PM	#154
Fidd XO Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Blighty! Posts: 424 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	125. Smoke from diesels varying detection-range. To add to the workload of the engine-room crew when surfaced, it might be good if it became more important for the amount and colour of smoke from the diesels affected the detection-range at which the u-boat is spotted. This would make it more important for machinists to ensure they had optimal "blue-flames" at all times, when operating the diesels. It might also mean commanders were more inclined to make the final approach towards the convoy on the e-motor, thus drawing down the battery more. Both would add content for the engineer/machinists, as well as making detection-ranges more "fuzzy" (rather than the "digital" - if I'm outside 2200m [or whatever it is] then "I cannot be detected"). I suggest that making a lot of smoke from diesels being badly de-tuned, increase the detection range by 200-300m or so at night, and 600-900m in daylight?

02-15-24, 01:34 PM	#156
Fidd XO Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Blighty! Posts: 424 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	127. "Whisper text" Text only readable when in the same compartment as the sender. Purpose: to allow instruction or conversation without causing undue text distraction in other areas of the boat. "shift/return" to bring up the whisper text buffer?

02-17-24, 02:38 PM	#157
Fidd XO Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Blighty! Posts: 424 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	128. Thoughts on aircraft. The rumour-mill keeps suggesting aircraft may be devved at some point. These obviously have quite considerable potential impacts on the game. I presume that it's a given that their existence in game would be optional as a lobby setting. Obviously there are Luftwaffe aircraft capable of patrolling and spotting, and indeed attacking a convoy, eg an FW200, or Ju88's, which patrolled Biscay, the FW's being out further in the Atlantic. In a campaign-game, these could be used to both locate, and track a convoy, at least until the advent of escort carriers or steam-catapulted Hurricanes to provide a convoy with the ability to defend itself v enemy aircraft. At the end of the day, outside of a convoy campaign, it's hard to see what they can actually bring to the u-boat game. Likewise, the various ASW aircraft, eg Sunderlands, Wellingtons, Catalinas and Liberators (also a limited number of B17's) which actively hunted u-boats night and day, with rockets, DC's, FIDO and the like, present a major problem in terms of gameplay, especially at night, as the combination of Leigh-lights, rad-alts and radar means 9 times out of 10 the aircraft will acquire the u-boat before it can dive, and having done so the warning systems on the u-boat will not give directional information to the flak-gunner. So the advantage, especially for a u-boat with a single 20mm cannon, is going to be entirely with the aircraft, until it turns on the Leigh light, after which it'd only have a very few seconds to acquire the target and hit it. It's hard to see how allied aircraft can therefore be introduced into the game with their ASW capabilities, without generating a lot of crash-dives, failure to close with the convoy etc. Especially as the war progresses in date. It might be viable in the Atlantic "air-gap", as the only (rarely present) viable aircraft operating there are relatively large Sunderlands and Liberators, with the latter not being an especially effective in the ASW role. Both present enormous targets to flak gunners and neither is quick... Concurrent devving of the Schnorkel may help, however, these were quite limited in the maximum speed they could be operated, and could still - with difficulty - be spotted on an ASR screen, and thence visually. So even with schnorkel use, having planes in game presents enormous challenges to generating good content with allied aircraft being introduced. That is not to say it cannot be done, merely that it may have to be limited to more of an abstraction, and likely purely within a campaign game. So, you might have an FW200 telling you where a convoy is, and it's mean-course, allowing BDU to direct u-boats to coalesce ahead of that track. Conversely, if some convoys have an escort carrier, then those aircraft would preclude or disrupt the advantage of having an FW200 tracking that convoy, making it, at the campaign-level, harder to locate and intercept it. So aircraft can, within "the campaign" be made to impact the game as an abstraction, rather than something one sees flying about and liable to attack one's u-boat as such... Manned allied aircraft, especially in the ASR role, suffer from the same gameplay problem as (purely) manned escorts do, namely that endless patrols had to flown, over hundreds of hours a month, and few crews ever saw a u-boat, let alone attacked one, without the advantages of night and radar/searchlights. So I think "rarity" of the experience of being attacked at night by a dedicated (AI) ASR aircraft has to be key here - ie it's something you might play 30 or 40 games (within the campaign) without ever seeing, but if your boat is attacked in this way, one can expect very heavy damage, if not being rapidly sunk. In any event, that'd have to be an optional lobby setting, as one may readily forecast the general wailing and gnashing of teeth consequent from suddenly being greatly damaged or sunk during a game with little or no warning, and still less ability to avoid that fate! It *only* makes any sense within the context of a campaign-game, where one's aim is to acquire tonnage and survive for a number of sequential missions! Again within a campaign, the presence of friendly abstracted aircraft, can reduce the chance - a little - of being attacked by an enemy ASR aircraft, or having enemy Hunter-killer groups vectored onto you, however, in practical terms the problem we're left with is that effective counter-measures in behaviour of the u-boat all suck as u-boat gameplay - eg being compelled to recharge in daylight and submerge at night, or, using schnorkels at much lower speeds. So, the conclusion I'm rapidly coming to is that even in the campaign game, it's still going to be very difficult indeed to implement aircraft in a fashion where one may come and drop DC's on one, without producing sub-optimal gameplay. It might be possible to have a single Catalina or FW200 flying endless orbits around the convoy once in a few games, but otherwise.. As regards informal stand-alone games. There's no scope that I can see for having ASR aircraft in game, if the capabilities are accurately modelled. Unless, they can only damage, rather than sink, the u-boat, thus presenting damage-control content. I'd be interested to hear other's views, especially dissenting ones, or ideas for how it could be made to work? To my mind, having the experience of seeing a Hunter-killer group come over the horizon (because you've been spotted on the surface) is one thing, being killed with little or no warning, and virtually no scope for reply via flak, at night, is quite another! I'll leave it there for now, but may edit amend or add further posts on this in the light of other's thoughts and ideas.

02-18-24, 12:21 PM	#158
Fidd XO Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Blighty! Posts: 424 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	129. Adjustment to AI gunnery accuracy, and to 3rd party sounds of incoming shells. - and alarm-bells and abandon-ship/death! I think AI gunnery accuracy needs to be toned down somewhat, so that there are a few close misses/waterspouts/audible incoming shell, and detonation on the water sounds *before* hits occur. (unless the range is minimal) Broadly speaking, the ability to land hits should be roughly equal between players firing at a given range with the deck-gun, and that of fire from escorts. One could make a case that fire from armed merchantmen would likely be less accurate, however, as they also provide much more stable gun-platforms, for accurate shooting, relative to firing from a pitching/rolling/yawing u-boat, or a smaller escort, I think a case could be made to keep their AI fire roughly on a par with escorts. In all situations, AI gunfire needs to be more accurate than that achievable by a player at a given range, but not to the current degree? In order for the crew to be able to react quickly enough, all crew areas need to have the ability to hear alarm bells, which were historically fitted to every compartment in a u-boat excepting the lavatories and possibly the radio/rooms. (Decaf has source material). So, the first order of business is to add alarm-bells (not the switches?) to near the diesel station, and in the e-motor room and forward torpedo room. The second change could be either reducing the rate of fire, or, preferably, the AI's currently un-erring accuracy, so there's a reasonable chance that a u-boat under shell-fire can at least get under before the 3rd lethal hit, properly handled. It stands to reason that a boat that's been hit is going to take on water, at a pretty considerable rate, but with damage-control (wooden plugs) and suitable bracing, it's reasonable to suppose a u-boat might be able to submerge to very modest depths - circa 20m max - with damage-control, subject to whether the struck area is accessible. IE a hit in the tower would be fairly straight-forwards to stop a leak by penetrating shot, one behind a diesel would be very much less so. It is right, and proper, I think, that a u-boat detected within 8000 yards or so of an escort should come under fire, and thence very likely asdic search and at least one round of DC's, if not many more. There also needs to be the chance of an unfixable damage being inflicted that results - after a suitable struggle - in the loss of the boat. What I'm questioning here is if the AI is correctly and reasonably configured in shell-fire accuracy. Which brings me onto what happens when lethal hits/a sinking boat arise. Personally I would like to see the ability for the player (or some of them) to "abandon-ship" if the order is given, and be able to leap off the boat to bob around in the sea for a bit before the end-screen. Those who do not get out having the water level rising within a given compartment before being forced through water-tight doors into neighbouring compartments with losses of lighting etc and rising water. Ideally the u-boat would take on a steep angle commensurate with the flooding, and sink as the physics warrants. Consideration could be given to the inrush of water as the top-hatch submerges preventing players getting up the ladder? All this would make for much more dramatic - and yet still believable - content in the event the u-boat is either damaged, or damaged to the point of sinking. A rather better result than the current "BANG! BANG! BANG!" - endscreen?

02-24-24, 11:54 PM	#160
Fidd XO Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Blighty! Posts: 424 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	131. "Bolt-on events" a) (10 minutes?) Provisioning. Loading of torpedoes through access hatches, and positioning to under-floor magazine. Filling spare space in the u-boat with crates of food "carried" and placed by moving "bots" crew. b) (10 minutes?) leaving port, navigating to open sea from u-boat bunker or port. Wave-off from band/well-wishers. c) (30 minutes?) game play crossing area under possible aircraft attack, night or day (random). d) (45 minutes?) Enigma message cites position and heading of convoy. Navigator lays off track, plots intercept. When within hydrophone range of convoy, marks bearing and range estimate. Repeats a little later to establish more accurate position and track of convoy. Radio officer sends result to BDU (encrypted), BDU rebroadcasts (encrypted) to all boats. Closure to visual range. The time between these events is skipped, but any or all can be "bolted on" to a workshop mission. The idea being to create more of a narrative game where there's an opportunity to see and be involved in some of the non-combat tasks. Not as an "every-day" means of playing the game, but as an occasional event or events, to recreate the whole experience. e) (10 minutes) return to bunker/band etc.

02-27-24, 01:13 PM	#162
Fidd XO Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Blighty! Posts: 424 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	133. Coloured name tags. Ideally this would reflect hours played in any given role. If difficult, it should simply reflect hours played in game in total, as recorded on Steam. This colour code would be visible to Captains when accepting players onto their boat, before they click "accept", and to all crew once they're aboard. This would help more experienced players tailor advice to a player whose experience is otherwise an unknown quantity of they've not played together before. It would operate in both senses, in preventing an experienced player from "teaching their grandmother to suck eggs", but also to ensure that a very new player isn't overloaded or yelled at for making a balls of a task! It might also be possible to vary the apparent age of avatars, with hours played so that inexperienced players have more youthful appearance, and vice versa. Suggested increments: Up to 30 hours Red 31 to 100 hours Orange 101 to 300 hours Yellow 301 to 1000 hours Green 1001 hours plus Blue 1001 hours plus. Purple

02-29-24, 10:17 AM	#163
Fidd XO Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Blighty! Posts: 424 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	134. Ability for escorts to "make smoke". After the first torpedo strike on a convoy, escorts could start making smoke. Self-evidently this will not completely obscure the convoy, but it would make observation of the convoy more difficult for follow-up shots, especially from the side, as escorts travel faster than the convoys base speed, during the period of the alert.

03-06-24, 08:00 AM	#164
Fidd XO Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Blighty! Posts: 424 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	135. Creeping attacks. This was a highly effective form of DC attack where 1 escort stood off circa 800m from a u-boat, keeping it pinged with asdic, without actually attacking. A second escort would then be directed to the position of the u-boat by the first, not using asdic, moving at dead slow, and dropping a pattern. The u-boat had no warning other than "splashes", as it only heard the pinging escort. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creeping_attack It would be interesting if our AI destroyers (and later human operated escorts) were able to work as pairs in this regard, especially if the pinging u-boat of the pair followed up with it's attack once the first boat's charges had detonated...

03-08-24, 07:21 AM	#165
Fidd XO Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Blighty! Posts: 424 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	136. No roll option - to prevent nausea. I find that any perceivable pitch/roll/yaw in the boat - pretty much 3 kts windspeed or above - causes me to become nauseous over time. This is caused by there being a conflict between what I see the boat doing, and the lack of attendant actual movement via the inner ear balance mechanisms. It's essentially the reverse of normal sea-sickness, where one feels the movement, but if below deck, you see no such movement. In both cases it's the conflict between inner-ear and visual references that causes the nausea. (hence the advice to "go up on deck" if ever you are sea-sick on a boat) I doubt I'm alone in this. It would be wonderful if there was an option whereby movement of the boat was able to be suppressed for a player who prefers not to endure this. I fully accept that it's part and parcel of a naval game, and that it's not really on for me to ask a lobby host to always feel the need to dial it back just on my account... Plainly if a player is on the deck or at a periscope, then they'll need the "full roll experience"....