How do they detect you when on the bottom?

[Poacher886]

I just had an end to my first campaign...its was short 10/09/39. After damaging a couple of troop carriers in a medium sized convoy off east England, i noticed an Escort heading my way, so i dived.

Not realising the relative shallow depth of 70m i soon hit the bottom...going to external view to check what the noise was about (im still new to SH5), i found my boat 'Actually' on the bottom (as in not floating 20m above it!) and to the side of a big boulder.

I decided to sit it out with all engines off and crew at silent running to see the result, sure enough the ASDIC pings picked me up and before i knew it, i was to damaged to move....despite letting of decoys, i was a sitting duck and the single relentless destroyer made many passes before finishing me off!!

My question is though, how do they detect you??, if im not moving, then they cant hear me, im not on the surface so they cant use radar, and surely Asdic will detect an object moving in the middle of a body of water, but if im motionless on the bottom, i would have thought it would just bounce of the bottom of the sea bed like it would off any rock or formation under the sea.

How can they tell that its a U-boat on the sea bed???

[Scoochy]

Sound bounces off metal differently than the sandy bottom?

[reignofdeath]

I believe it has to do with how they hard coded the game. They didnt incorporate hiding on the bottom into it. At least thats how it is for us folks with SH3 Im not sure about 4 and 5 but Im pretty sure itd be the same thing.

If not my guess is he picked you up before hand on hydrophone (if you were making noise) or got lucky and guessed where your torps came from and just started making runs when he hadnt picked you up

[BogdaNz]

it's does matters if you are moving or not moving,the ASDIC will detect you.the sound wave struck a submerged object like submarine and it is reflected back and picked up by the receiver .
you say how they detect me if i am not moving ,the answear is up.

[Sailor Steve]

Not necessarily. There are several incidents of submarines successfully hiding on the bottom in shallow water. The bottom absorbs the sound waves, or reflects them in odd directions. Also the sand absorbs the shock waves from the depth charges, enabling the sub to survive several hours of attacks. On the other hand, while we know about the few times this worked, we don't know exactly how many times it failed.

Unfortunately the game models none of this.

[BogdaNz]

Not necessarily. There are several incidents of submarines successfully hiding on the bottom in shallow water. The bottom absorbs the sound waves, or reflects them in odd directions. Also the sand absorbs the shock waves from the depth charges, enabling the sub to survive several hours of attacks. On the other hand, while we know about the few times this worked, we don't know exactly how many times it failed.

Unfortunately the game models none of this.
you talk here the u-boat attack in 1942-1943 which terorized the Saint Lawrence River(canada).There the u-boat was practically invisible,because was hidding by turbulance water of river,and remains undetected.The destroyers never get a solid contact of u-boat :rock:,u-boat was invisible :salute::arrgh!:.

[Hottentot]

In shallow waters and clear conditions I think it is possible in real life to occasionally simply see the submarine, especially from the air. Not sure if that would be the case in the Atlantic and 70m sounds pretty deep for this, though. And even if it was possible, I don't believe it's modelled.

Edit: I was thinking something along these (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/USS_Chicago_%28SSN_721%29_at_periscope_depth_off_M alaysia.jpg) lines (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Periscope_Depth.jpg). Those are in periscope depth, but you get the point.

[Sbygneus]

I agree with Bogdanz. Its ASDIC that detects you. The seafloor is mostly flat, apart from rocky shore areas, reefs or deep ocean mountains which are not the case here. For ASDIC, a laying submarine is a clear obstacle of high density material (low wave absorbtion, high deflection). However, there seem to be a chance to lay in some kind of seaflor ditch or trench and thus make ASDIC detection very hard. In a book about Operation Paukenschlag I read about Hardegen's U-123 succesfully hidden this way once at the East coast of US.

[Sailor Steve]

you talk here the u-boat attack in 1942-1943 which terorized the Saint Lawrence River(canada).There the u-boat was practically invisible,because was hidding by turbulance water of river,and remains undetected.The destroyers never get a solid contact of u-boat :rock:,u-boat was invisible :salute::arrgh!:.
No, I wasn't talking about that at all. I was mainly referring to the adventures of S-38, which attacked the Japanese fleet in the Lingayen Gulf in 1941. She grounded four separate times and survived over 36 hours of on-again-off-again depth-charging.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_S-38_(SS-143)

[Catfish]

Hello,
Hardegen also reports being overrun by destroyers numerous times at a depth of some 30 meters, also Topp, also Prien, and some others.

"How do they detect you when on the bottom?"

They don't. In reality ;)

Greetings,
Catfish

[MoN]

In shallow waters and clear conditions I think it is possible in real life to occasionally simply see the submarine, especially from the air. Not sure if that would be the case in the Atlantic and 70m sounds pretty deep for this, though. And even if it was possible, I don't believe it's modelled.

Edit: I was thinking something along these (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/USS_Chicago_%28SSN_721%29_at_periscope_depth_off_M alaysia.jpg) lines (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Periscope_Depth.jpg). Those are in periscope depth, but you get the point.

There is no way to see the ground 70 meters down as water absorbs all light within 60 meters even under perfect conditions. Being on a plane obviously does not help.

I've seen the wreck of a ww2 corvette at about 35meters in the red sea from just UNDER the surface and you could barely see it even when knowing exactly were it was.

As the red sea is way clearer then the Atlantic/north sea and there was no distortion from the surface I'd say it's impossible to see a u-boat below 30m or so.

[Highbury]

Very true MoN. However the issue here does not have anything to do with such an "organic" issue as actually seeing through water with eyeballs. It is simply that the game does not have that many variables programmed into it. Destroyer ping hits sub, sub does not move so contact is not lost, depth charges hit sub. That's it.

However, even if such things as hiding on the bottom were programmed in I think that sitting totally stationary in shallow water launching decoys as the OP said, would be a sure way to die even with the stupidest AI. "Hey! Look at all those obviously man made bubbles that keep coming up from the exact same spot!"

[Catfish]

Very true MoN. However the issue here does not have anything to do with such an "organic" issue as actually seeing through water with eyeballs. It is simply that the game does not have that many variables programmed into it. Destroyer ping hits sub, sub does not move so contact is not lost, depth charges hit sub.

That's it. ...

That's it exactly.
And this is unfortunately what has been obviously unchanged since SH3 :shifty:

They find you at the bottom regardless of depth, and they find you at periscope depth. With hydrophones, or with ASDIC/Sonar. Surface noise not modelled, sound channels not modelled, and if the probablity to find you is set to 0,1 (so they find you in 10 percent of the times) they will find you anyway, because after finishing the cycle they search again and will get you surely with the 10th sweep. Guaranteed.

Running silent with additional full stop 4 miles away they hear, ping, see and detect you everytime if they come near to 500 meters. And there is not even 10 meters of leeway, they find you exactly. Leaving the U-mark on you see that they will cruise exactly through that mark, directly above you, not a meter aside.
Maybe in late 1944, and 45, but never in 1939.

According to the reports of the time U-boat captains would run silent at PD with destroyers passing some 100 meter away without being detected, neither by using passive or active detection. They raced ahead, dived, and let themselves be passed by the convoy. Not so in Silent Hunter.
I wonder why they ever built U-boats in reality if it would have been that way. The only advantage you have is you will not be rammed, apart from that you could as well be a surface vessel, your exact position is always known.

I really wonder why one would enhance just of all the AI, if the vanilla one finds you that way already in 1939 ? :-?

But you can adjust the AI level, as i read - will sure do that in 1939.

Greetings,
Catfish

[Poacher886]

I always thought that behond the thermal layer approx 30m, Sonar waves would be distorted and thus find it harder to detect..thus being motionless on the sea bed at depths below 30m shpuld prove very hard to detect by all but the most experenced crew.

Its a great shame that the 'U-boat' sim does not 'sim' these vital and core gameplay tactics and effects, and also supprising, that no modders have endevoured to solve these core issues!

Lets face it, U-boat warfare leaves little to do apart from hunting / sinking ships, and evading being sunk by them...If this is'nt right.....

[Catfish]

Hello Poacher,

I always thought that behond the thermal layer approx 30m, Sonar waves would be distorted and thus find it harder to detect..thus being motionless on the sea bed at depths below 30m shpuld prove very hard to detect by all but the most experenced crew.


this is not necessarily true - thermal layers are modelled in SH5 as far as i know, but you will not know if there is any change in the water around the U-boat, be it density or thermal layers. So sometimes you will not be heard, and sometimes you will - THIS is ok in my book. Thermal layers do occur, but not everywhere, and not at the same dephts. German U-boats did not measure the water to find out layers, thermal and salinity changes. Indeed i think the US boats were the only ones to do that at that time.

From what i read you would be relative safe in anything else than absolute calm waters at periscope depth, because hydrophones will not pick you up when being slow, or even running silent at less than 100 revs per minute due to surface noise.

As well mostly ASDIC will not pick you up there as well, since the upper part of the active ASDIC detection cone is NOT parallel to the water surface. Even if it was, the wave action in anything but zero wave conditions will screw this up. It works better in shallow undisturbed waters because the sound waves are then reflected from the shallow ground, going up at an angle, and thus being able to detect the boat. But where would you find such conditions, in reality ? Even in the baltic it is almost impossible -
There is one possibility of "bent-up" sound waves, if an underwater layer is thick enough to reflect, or even bend the waves in a transition zone thus being able to detect the U-boat. Does not happen very often, and was not so well-known in the early days.

So indeed the deeper you go, the more will enemy active ASDIC/SONAR be able to detect you, BUT THERE WAS NO DEPTH DETECTION UNTIL LATE 1944. They would just detect a 2-D contact, and throw charges at varying depths to hit you by chance.


But until "capturing" the U-570 (later tested as "HMS Graph") the Allies had no idea that a german sub was able to dive deeper than 80 meters, so you would be safe until october 1941 if you go deeper than that - the depth charges would be set to 80 at most before that date. In german transmissions depth was coded as "A", meaning "Achtzig" or "Eighty". 220 meters diving depth would have been 2a+60 meters, in a coded transmission. British submarines were not able to go anywhere near a diving depth of 100+ meters, or 300 feet. This is very seldomly mentioned, even today :dead:

If there is no thermal or other density layer, blue water conditions are perfect for active ASDIC later Sonar down to 160 meters, but not near the bottom, and not at periscope depth. Below 160 meters there is again a change in sound wave transmission, making detection harder again.
Some commanders never went down that far and survived nontheless. Erich Topp says in "Fackeln über dem Atlantik" (would that be "Torches over the Atlantic"?) that he seldomly dived deeper than 30 meters, because at that depth the boat's hydrophones were perfectly able to detect and hear an attack run when it began, making an early evasion possible. An attacking escort at full speed was deaf and blind until going back to slow again - unless there is another destroyer listening. But even then this other one will not hear the boat at full speeed as long as the other D. is at its attack speed. It was not easy to detect U-boats, until late 1943 - even then you needed a well trained crew.

Using hydrophones it depends on how loud you are (obviously). If you are going slow they will not hear you in reality, as well evading depth charges by suddenly going to full speed and then decelearating again after having changed the direction, will confuse them as well.

As soon as there is more than one destroyer and they use the run and listen tactics, you will probably be toast; until you are - by chance - at another depth than the charges are set to. Without depth detection they know roughly where you are, but not how deep (In SH3-5 depth charges explode at your exact depth already in 1939).
When Walker developed his tactics of using one destroyer for listening and ASDIC, and another for the chage run few U-boats escaped, but again: Not every destroyer crew was as well trained as the U-boat hunter groups, and convoy escorts usually did not have the time and training to do that - as well the noise of a whole convoy rendered the hydrophones useless. In the middle of a convoy a boat at PD will be roughly at a depth of the surrounding freighter hulls, and impossible to detect by passive or active systems.

It is a shame that you still cannot copy the original tactics and survive after three iterations of a "developing" sim, at least until 1943.

But it looks nice. ;)

Greetings,
Catfish

[Poacher886]

Nice post! and interesting read, and just goes to show how much room for development in the game there is ;)

What you said about the british subs not being able to dive below 100m though is not correct, i have a book on WW11 subs and the British dropped a (i think it was S=class) in to the depths for depth testing to something like 300m before it crushed!

[Catfish]

Hello,
thanks at least we know there's room for improvement - an ... elegant description :D

For the "S"-class - 300 meters would be 900 feet. I think only the latest german boats were capable of that in 1944/45. England did not have the alloys - but i admit it is hard to find the diving dephts of the british boats, this is seldomly mentioned in the data sheets (ahem) - so not sure, but here they talk of 300 feet, or appx. 92 meters :
http://books.google.de/books?id=hMaSTiHd8V4C&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=british+S+class+diving+depth&source=bl&ots=6SkAtOBANl&sig=LkXdLC7PM-gQ7dN9v8-g9oQkRXU&hl=de&ei=jfg9TY7cOYX6sgalxdDzBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=british%20S%20class%20diving%20depth&f=false

(I know it's only the internet, so it might be wrong ;) )

Thanks and greetings,
Catfish

[Webster]

quite simply the game "cheats" and its done on purpose and with very good reason.

if sitting on the bottom worked in the game as it does in real life then you would find it too easy to evade and elude your attackers and by default it would make the game too easy so they want you to die often and find no escape from attackers so the game stays "intense" and thrilling to you. this increases the games appeal and popularity as well as sales and this is why destroyers always know your exact position and depth from 5nm away. its been like that in all the sh games.


lets face it if the game worked as real life you could follow well established practices that make success rates very high and the game would always feel too easy and lose your interest.

[Bilge_Rat]

its a catch-22, if the escorts cannot find you, players complain about the "brain dead" AI, if they kill you all the time, players complain about the "superhuman AI"...:damn:

for example, if you look at the passive/active sonar detection cones in the stock game, you find that they are actually quite small and easy to evade (unless you play with map updates off/no external views :ping:)...

for example..

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/3996/scope005.jpg (http://img193.imageshack.us/i/scope005.jpg/)

speed 1 knot, periscope just breaking the surface. Escorts cannot hear me (yellow cone), pick me up on SONAR (red cone) and the periscope is still outside of visual range (grey cone).

On the other hand, you can easily mod the game to increase the reach of the sensors so the escorts will find you and kill you each and everytime.

[vanjast]

Here an Asdic scan from a WW2 destroyer.. as you can see, it's a 'no brainer' to workout where to release DCs, even after about 5 pings.

http://www.vanjast.com/IL2Pics/Asdic.jpg

[Catfish]

Hello Webster,

quite simply the game "cheats" and its done on purpose and with very good reason.
if sitting on the bottom worked in the game as it does in real life then you would find it too easy to evade and elude your attackers and by default it would make the game too easy so they want you to die often and find no escape from attackers so the game stays "intense" and thrilling to you. this increases the games appeal and popularity as well as sales and this is why destroyers always know your exact position and depth from 5nm away. its been like that in all the sh games.

lets face it if the game worked as real life you could follow well established practices that make success rates very high and the game would always feel too easy and lose your interest.

You have a point, or better 6 of them :D
But is it really demanding too much, if the AI and detection methods seem not to have changed in more than 10 years, in a developing sim ?
Do they still use the same basic program since all this time ?
I admit there certainly are all kinds of improvements, but it is still just of all the basic things that do not work correctly. It is difficult to program the algorythms, it has to sell, it is only a small niche etc. etc.
I just wish it would be not so ;)

Greetings,
Catfish

[Catfish]

Hello Bilge_Rat,

you are certainly right, but i do not use any map updates, so i am not so clearly seeing which destroyer detects me, and which does not. So i am not able to use the angles to sneak through ..
The problem is it is mostly much more than 5 destroyers, and it is then very hard to evade ..

Anyway the fourth time i was able to sink the BB and one freighter, AND sneak away. The 10 destroyers were still damaging me now and then, but i used a trick that worked:

I rose from 150 to 100 meters right after a DC attack, and behaved as loud as possible. Then i turned the rudder to hard starboard, went to silent running using the rest of the speed for turning, and went down to 160 meters going (slowly) away at 90 degrees from the original course. This time they lost me (after 4 hours of chasing).

Thanks for your explanation, it seems their hydrophones have a very short detection range (?)

Greetings,
Catfish

[Bilge_Rat]

Thanks for your explanation, it seems their hydrophones have a very short detection range (?)



it varies based on many factors: own speed, own depth, escort's speed, escort's "state". (i.e. passive/alert), sea state, presence of a thermal layer. Basically, the deeper and slower you go, the harder you are to detect.

for example, PQ-17 mission, stock game, PD, speed 1 knot, escort passive:

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/8786/escorts0001.jpg (http://img169.imageshack.us/i/escorts0001.jpg/)
the sub is almost invisible

now increase speed to 3 knots and the escorts could detect you from farther away:

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/6769/escorts0002.jpg (http://img8.imageshack.us/i/escorts0002.jpg/)

I dont use this when I play the campaign, but it is a useful tool to understand how and when the escorts can detect you. The sensor modeling in SH5 is actually quite sophisticated. The sensor's effectivenes in the stock game is a bit on the low side, but not unreasonable. The big problem is that a lot of the attack/search scripts apparently did not work as designed. Thankfully, modders have done a lot of work in this area.

[Poacher886]

Personally i've never used contacts on the map, i feel its a bit of a cheat, though it is interesting as you said to see how they work in-game.

I feel, that for the best balance between historical accuracy and gameplay, they should (like anything in war) be no right or wrong, no fixed answer to detection.

The idea that an enemy destroyer WILL detect you when moving in all but the most obvious of positions or WILL NOT detect you when performing other actions, is not the way forward.

The enemy crew down to the individual, technology, and general allertness of the crew, mixed in with weather conditions, time of day, and undersea thermals, all contribute to whether or not you will be detected in reality, the countless stories of U-boat crews strenghen this view.

For me, the most important thing is that it is 'Random' always, but odds in favour of detection or not depending on conditions / year / Your own skill. This way you carry the tension throughout the sim, never really sure whether their find you or not!!

[Catfish]

Hello Poacher886,

"... I feel, that for the best balance between historical accuracy and gameplay, they should (like anything in war) be no right or wrong, no fixed answer to detection.

The idea that an enemy destroyer WILL detect you when moving in all but the most obvious of positions or WILL NOT detect you when performing other actions, is not the way forward.

The enemy crew down to the individual, technology, and general allertness of the crew, mixed in with weather conditions, time of day, and undersea thermals, all contribute to whether or not you will be detected in reality, the countless stories of U-boat crews strenghen this view.

For me, the most important thing is that it is 'Random' always, but odds in favour of detection or not depending on conditions / year / Your own skill. This way you carry the tension throughout the sim, never really sure whether their find you or not!!


well said,
if you play by the book programming wise you will succeed, if not thy get you - too predictable. As some "Teddybaer" always says it is the lack of uncertainty that kills the immersion, but this is probably the hardest thing to implement in a sim ... if you think of the usual "if - then" code.
I will also admit that the programming of detection is a lot more complicated than in SH3 or so it seems from the screenshots and changing conditions, but then it seems it does not always work right -

Thanks and greetings,
Catfish

[silent shadow]

Hi all,

I am sure I read somewhere, although I can't remember where, that asdic could detect large lumps of metal (namely U-boats) while lying on the bottom. In fact it was not unheard of for destroyers to mistake shipwrecks, in shallow waters, for U-boats and attack with depth charges.

[reignofdeath]

Hello Poacher,



this is not necessarily true - thermal layers are modelled in SH5 as far as i know, but you will not know if there is any change in the water around the U-boat, be it density or thermal layers. So sometimes you will not be heard, and sometimes you will - THIS is ok in my book. Thermal layers do occur, but not everywhere, and not at the same dephts. German U-boats did not measure the water to find out layers, thermal and salinity changes. Indeed i think the US boats were the only ones to do that at that time.

From what i read you would be relative safe in anything else than absolute calm waters at periscope depth, because hydrophones will not pick you up when being slow, or even running silent at less than 100 revs per minute due to surface noise.

As well mostly ASDIC will not pick you up there as well, since the upper part of the active ASDIC detection cone is NOT parallel to the water surface. Even if it was, the wave action in anything but zero wave conditions will screw this up. It works better in shallow undisturbed waters because the sound waves are then reflected from the shallow ground, going up at an angle, and thus being able to detect the boat. But where would you find such conditions, in reality ? Even in the baltic it is almost impossible -
There is one possibility of "bent-up" sound waves, if an underwater layer is thick enough to reflect, or even bend the waves in a transition zone thus being able to detect the U-boat. Does not happen very often, and was not so well-known in the early days.

So indeed the deeper you go, the more will enemy active ASDIC/SONAR be able to detect you, BUT THERE WAS NO DEPTH DETECTION UNTIL LATE 1944. They would just detect a 2-D contact, and throw charges at varying depths to hit you by chance.


But until "capturing" the U-570 (later tested as "HMS Graph") the Allies had no idea that a german sub was able to dive deeper than 80 meters, so you would be safe until october 1941 if you go deeper than that - the depth charges would be set to 80 at most before that date. In german transmissions depth was coded as "A", meaning "Achtzig" or "Eighty". 220 meters diving depth would have been 2a+60 meters, in a coded transmission. British submarines were not able to go anywhere near a diving depth of 100+ meters, or 300 feet. This is very seldomly mentioned, even today :dead:

If there is no thermal or other density layer, blue water conditions are perfect for active ASDIC later Sonar down to 160 meters, but not near the bottom, and not at periscope depth. Below 160 meters there is again a change in sound wave transmission, making detection harder again.
Some commanders never went down that far and survived nontheless. Erich Topp says in "Fackeln über dem Atlantik" (would that be "Torches over the Atlantic"?) that he seldomly dived deeper than 30 meters, because at that depth the boat's hydrophones were perfectly able to detect and hear an attack run when it began, making an early evasion possible. An attacking escort at full speed was deaf and blind until going back to slow again - unless there is another destroyer listening. But even then this other one will not hear the boat at full speeed as long as the other D. is at its attack speed. It was not easy to detect U-boats, until late 1943 - even then you needed a well trained crew.

Using hydrophones it depends on how loud you are (obviously). If you are going slow they will not hear you in reality, as well evading depth charges by suddenly going to full speed and then decelearating again after having changed the direction, will confuse them as well.

As soon as there is more than one destroyer and they use the run and listen tactics, you will probably be toast; until you are - by chance - at another depth than the charges are set to. Without depth detection they know roughly where you are, but not how deep (In SH3-5 depth charges explode at your exact depth already in 1939).
When Walker developed his tactics of using one destroyer for listening and ASDIC, and another for the chage run few U-boats escaped, but again: Not every destroyer crew was as well trained as the U-boat hunter groups, and convoy escorts usually did not have the time and training to do that - as well the noise of a whole convoy rendered the hydrophones useless. In the middle of a convoy a boat at PD will be roughly at a depth of the surrounding freighter hulls, and impossible to detect by passive or active systems.

It is a shame that you still cannot copy the original tactics and survive after three iterations of a "developing" sim, at least until 1943.

But it looks nice. ;)

Greetings,
Catfish

Im convinced. Its official. Catfish, you know your ****.:up: Great read man! and like the guy before you said. It makes me quite upset that a sim developed over 3 games still hasnt fixed things that make a sim a sim. Like bottom hiding, and proper destroyer detection. I believe they should get rid of the Ubi Dev team and hire our modders to make a new game :)

[reignofdeath]

quite simply the game "cheats" and its done on purpose and with very good reason.

if sitting on the bottom worked in the game as it does in real life then you would find it too easy to evade and elude your attackers and by default it would make the game too easy so they want you to die often and find no escape from attackers so the game stays "intense" and thrilling to you. this increases the games appeal and popularity as well as sales and this is why destroyers always know your exact position and depth from 5nm away. its been like that in all the sh games.


lets face it if the game worked as real life you could follow well established practices that make success rates very high and the game would always feel too easy and lose your interest.

But once 1940 or 41 hit and DEFINATELY 42, youd start dieing. Alot.

[Sailor Steve]

Hi all,

I am sure I read somewhere, although I can't remember where, that asdic could detect large lumps of metal (namely U-boats) while lying on the bottom. In fact it was not unheard of for destroyers to mistake shipwrecks, in shallow waters, for U-boats and attack with depth charges.
Asdic doesn't reflect only off of metal. Sound will bounce off anything large, including the wrecks of wooden ships, also whales and large schools of fish.

[THE_MASK]

''added watch crews and fatigue to the ship AI''
This plus the fact i can change the AI with the IRAI difficulty parameters .
AI is pretty darn good . I have my non merchant settings 0.93
They havnt been predictable at all .
As a sub captain its getting annoying , just the way i like it .