WW2 Sub sim game vs. RL U-boat captain

[somedude88]

I have been thinking about making a U-boat management-style game, (kind of like "Uboot") but want to make it more like "Paper's Please" which is an odd game where it somehow makes the mundane rather fun/interesting.

The question that I need answered for design purpose is what the distinguishing differences are between what you're able to do in the SH series vs what RL U-boat captains would do. It sort of felt like you were doing all the calculating, navigation, sonar work and weapons management and I feel like that's not what a RL captain would spend his time doing. I'm just curious as to what a real U-boat captain would do/his involvement would be, in the typical situations such as spotting ships, torpedo runs, surface engagements, defending from air attacks, etc. etc.

Thanks for your answers. Cheers!

[Onkel Neal]

I enjoyed Papers, Please. Look forward to learning more about your game concept

[NeonSamurai]

The best resource you probably could find would be a book or 2 authored by a former Uboat captain.

The other issue you may find, is what the captain did on the ship, varied between captains, as some would be more hands on, and others would give orders and let the crew do most things.

Typically the captain would be the one who read the orders from command, occasionally would have to operate the enigma himself if the orders were for the captain only to read, he would control things like the periscope and TDC binoculars, he may also participate in watch shifts on the conning tower, and he mostly gave orders to the rest of the crew, such as speed, depth, heading, course plotting (sometimes he may do it personally), silent running, opening torpedo doors and firing, and pretty much everything else that happened on board ship that was important (though the XO may also handle some of this stuff too as would other junior officers).

[somedude88]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

The best resource you probably could find would be a book or 2 authored by a former Uboat captain.

The other issue you may find, is what the captain did on the ship, varied between captains, as some would be more hands on, and others would give orders and let the crew do most things.

Typically the captain would be the one who read the orders from command, occasionally would have to operate the enigma himself if the orders were for the captain only to read, he would control things like the periscope and TDC binoculars, he may also participate in watch shifts on the conning tower, and he mostly gave orders to the rest of the crew, such as speed, depth, heading, course plotting (sometimes he may do it personally), silent running, opening torpedo doors and firing, and pretty much everything else that happened on board ship that was important (though the XO may also handle some of this stuff too as would other junior officers).

Any book recommendations?

I've always had a problem trying to imagine a properly implemented game mechanic that would balance the play-styles of "hands-on" to "hands-off" because most players would rather micro-manage (hands-on) to maximize efficiency or avoid losing the game due to a mistake made by auto-management systems, (auto-management without mistakes would be unrealistic). If I could make any one thing perfect in this game, I would like to make both play-styles fun, intuitive and without micromanagement being a much "safer" or better option. I want it so that if a player micromanages, its because they prefer to run their U-boat that way, and not because they feel like they "have to" or it's better. And if there was a sort of tonnage score they have to beat at the end of the war/game, most would rather micromanage to have the best chance of getting that high score and not because they prefer to play that way.
Addendum: It would be interesting if more "hands on" captains in RL did better during the real WW2.

[Rockin Robbins]

Iron Coffins is one. Although some have said it might be highly fictionalized (nice way of saying the author didn't tell the truth) the descriptions of captain/crew interaction don't depend on that.

Das Boot, on the other hand, is so highly fictionalized that it really can't be relied on for very much at all. It's an anti-war propoganda book first and everything else takes a very back seat. Makes the German sailors seem to be a lot of wusses. They weren't.

Didn't Prien write a book? Others will have more suggestions.

As far as the American war went, Dick O'Kane and Eugene Fluckey were both "hands off" captains who emphasized crew proficiency and trusting their men. Their example shows that the more training, accompanied by decision making power you give to the crew, the better your boat performs. "Hands on" is a nice way of saying "you don't know Jack. My boat!" That almost always ends badly. It reduces the talents and capacity of 80 men to those of just one. Good people try to get out of a command and control organization and transfer into an advise and consent one. Therefore the "hands off" skippers accumulate the best sailors.

"Our boat" beats "my boat" just about every time. That seems like it's not the German way of doing things, but it was exactly how the German land forces worked, as opposed to the American command and control. Even odds in battle meant 3 American soldiers to every 1 German. That alone shows that "hands off," while possibly more difficult, is more efficient and effective.

[somedude88]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

As far as the American war went, Dick O'Kane and Eugene Fluckey were both "hands off" captains who emphasized crew proficiency and trusting their men. Their example shows that the more training, accompanied by decision making power you give to the crew, the better your boat performs. "Hands on" is a nice way of saying "you don't know Jack. My boat!" That almost always ends badly. It reduces the talents and capacity of 80 men to those of just one. Good people try to get out of a command and control organization and transfer into an advise and consent one. Therefore the "hands off" skippers accumulate the best sailors.

"Our boat" beats "my boat" just about every time. That seems like it's not the German way of doing things, but it was exactly how the German land forces worked, as opposed to the American command and control. Even odds in battle meant 3 American soldiers to every 1 German. That alone shows that "hands off," while possibly more difficult, is more efficient and effective.

A very interesting insight. Thanks! That was helpful!

[Rockin Robbins]

The most important lesson I ever learned: excellence is always voluntary. You can only compel someone to do the minimum amount of work to be retained. Anything over that standard is always voluntary. Excellence cannot be compelled. The only way to obtain excellence from your organization is for each member to volunteer to be excellent. Each individual has to believe that they are important to our success, that their expertise is valued, that their opinions are sought and considered important, whether or not that opinion is the ultimate decision which is implemented. It takes a strong leader to trust his people with his life.

Excellence is only voluntary. To achieve excellence you must enable your people to make decisions and implement them, knowing that you'll back them up. You must tolerate and celebrate mistakes as the price of success. And you must celebrate organizational success as their success, as you embrace failure as your failure, which will clear the way to their next success.

[Jimbuna]

I'd suggest you read the book by Peter-Erich Cremer, he recounted his life in his books "U-333: The story of a u-boat ace" and "U-Boat Commander: a periscope view of the Battle of the Atlantic.".

[Platapus]

One of my peeves I like to pet concerning Submarine games is that we are often faced with two unrealistic options

1. The computer handles all the work with unrealistic accuracy.

2. The Captain (player) is the only one on the submarine and has to do everything manually.

Either one of these kills the simulation aspect of the game for me.

in real life, there was a highly trained crew, trapped in a sensory deprivation tube called the submarine. The crew was restricted to a few venues of data. Periscope observations and the various sound stations and later radar.

Any errors in any of these data sources, would be faithfully and accurately processed by the crew. If the Captain reports that the AOB is Port 35, that's what the crew will work with and generate a very precise report based on that data. If, however the actual AOB was Port 30.. oops

Not the crew's (computer's) fault.

What I would like to see in a submarine simulator is programming that allows the simulated crew to quickly and accurately process only the data that the player supplies. Any error in my observations would be considered "truth" by the crew/computer.

Since data comes in from diverse sources e.g., periscope, passive sound, active sound, radar and it is impractical that the player can man all the stations, there has to be some "Simulation of error" for the stations not being manned by the player.


These simulated errors would include

1. Errors in the equipment - Early radar might not have been as good as later radar
2. Errors in human observation. The equipment is showing accurate data but the simulated human is making a mistake. E.g., the sound is actually coming from 235 but is reported by the simulated human as 230

This places the player in a position of making a choice, which is the whole idea of such simulators. "Where do I go?"

Do I man the periscope and accept simulated errors in sound? or for this attack, is it better to man the hydrophone and accept periscope observation errors?

Classic command problem : Do I want to trust in my errors or someone else?

The player should not, unless specific options are selected, to be able to easily do all as a real life captain could not do all during an attack.

That, in my opinion, is what I would like to see in a new sub simulator.

Avoiding the unrealistic extremes (or more accurately giving the player the options) and requiring the player to act more in line with the limitations of a "real" captain.

No computer simulation can simulate the reality, but I feel we can go a lot further and get a little bit closer to certain aspects of reality.

However, it sometimes seems like most of the effort is being placed on graphics, which if you think about it is probably the least realistic aspect of being in a submarine.

Just my thoughts

[somedude88]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

I'd suggest you read the book by Peter-Erich Cremer, he recounted his life in his books "U-333: The story of a u-boat ace" and "U-Boat Commander: a periscope view of the Battle of the Atlantic.".

Thanks for the suggestion, I literally bought the last copy available on Amazon!

[somedude88]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

I enjoyed Papers, Please. Look forward to learning more about your game concept

All I really know for sure is that it will be 2 or 2.5 D management so it will be a side view cutaway of the u-boat, will try to simulate every crewman and will try to emulate what a real U-boat captain did/was capable of at the time, so you will not be able to do SHIII levels of micromanagement and will possibly have some onshore leave aspect of gameplay like taking care of your family. And that it will be a passion project, and since I have other things on the burner, this will probably take a looooong time to make.

[somedude88]

Originally Posted by Platapus

One of my peeves I like to pet concerning Submarine games is that we are often faced with two unrealistic options

1. The computer handles all the work with unrealistic accuracy.

2. The Captain (player) is the only one on the submarine and has to do everything manually.

Either one of these kills the simulation aspect of the game for me.

in real life, there was a highly trained crew, trapped in a sensory deprivation tube called the submarine. The crew was restricted to a few venues of data. Periscope observations and the various sound stations and later radar.

Any errors in any of these data sources, would be faithfully and accurately processed by the crew. If the Captain reports that the AOB is Port 35, that's what the crew will work with and generate a very precise report based on that data. If, however the actual AOB was Port 30.. oops

Not the crew's (computer's) fault.

What I would like to see in a submarine simulator is programming that allows the simulated crew to quickly and accurately process only the data that the player supplies. Any error in my observations would be considered "truth" by the crew/computer.

Since data comes in from diverse sources e.g., periscope, passive sound, active sound, radar and it is impractical that the player can man all the stations, there has to be some "Simulation of error" for the stations not being manned by the player.


These simulated errors would include

1. Errors in the equipment - Early radar might not have been as good as later radar
2. Errors in human observation. The equipment is showing accurate data but the simulated human is making a mistake. E.g., the sound is actually coming from 235 but is reported by the simulated human as 230

This places the player in a position of making a choice, which is the whole idea of such simulators. "Where do I go?"

Do I man the periscope and accept simulated errors in sound? or for this attack, is it better to man the hydrophone and accept periscope observation errors?

Classic command problem : Do I want to trust in my errors or someone else?

The player should not, unless specific options are selected, to be able to easily do all as a real life captain could not do all during an attack.

That, in my opinion, is what I would like to see in a new sub simulator.

Avoiding the unrealistic extremes (or more accurately giving the player the options) and requiring the player to act more in line with the limitations of a "real" captain.

No computer simulation can simulate the reality, but I feel we can go a lot further and get a little bit closer to certain aspects of reality.

However, it sometimes seems like most of the effort is being placed on graphics, which if you think about it is probably the least realistic aspect of being in a submarine.

Just my thoughts

In line of these limitations you speak of, I've always felt that a "stat board" of NPC's has been a sort of cheating when you compare it to how someone is judged for their abilities in real life. In this regard, I'm thinking of a system where YOU as the captain, grade your submariners in your logbook/reports, regarding their combat history and their actions and giving them a grade yourself to remind yourself of their stats and progress later. That being said, I can't imagine that paperwork being "fun" but like I said, "Paper's Please" somehow made paperwork fun and the hope is that doing stuff like this would be an enjoyable investment.