ALL THE MISSING FEATURES THAT A WWII SUBMARINE SIMULATION SHOULD HAVE

[Mister_M]

Hello,

In this thread, I would like to list all the missing (or badly done) features which, in your opinion (and mine), are really missing in SH3 to make it a real good U-Boot and WWII simulation. This list could be useful to help developpers for a future U-Boot simulation.

I will update this first post with all your ideas. :Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:

----

Before each line, the evaluation that I give to the difficulty to add the feature (1/5 = easy ----- 5/5 = very hard).

* = Possible to partially correct/add to SH3.
** = Possible to fully correct/add to SH3.

--------

The weather

Weather, night and moon light should be key factors having a major effect on detection ability (visual, hydrophone, ASDIC, radar) both for the enemy and yourself *. Cf. AI detection ability.

3/5 - The weather should be far more sophisticated, with a lot of various and precise parameters, different types of clouds, realistic wind speeds and sea states.

2/5 - The type of weather should depend on the period of the year and geographical position (for example, there are more storms in the North Atlantic during winter).

1/5 - Snow (snow squalls) and aurora borealis (illuminating the night) should be added.

1/5 - Bad weather (storm) should cause the convoys to scatter.

1/5 - You shouldn't be able to use periscope at night, or only (and hardly) with bright moon light (full moon in clear sky).


The AI units

2/5 - They should be able to attack with torpedoes (AI submarines, aircrafts, fast boats, destroyers...).

4/5 - They should adjust their attack depending on the power of the enemy in front of them (run away under a smoke screen, run for a torpedo attack, crash dive...).

2/5 - All the units escorting a convoy should not attack at the same time a single U-Boot, leaving the convoy without protection. They also shouldn't hunt it for too long (for example no more than 30 minutes), their main task being to escort the convoy. They should use ASDIC even prior to any enemy contact. They shouldn't go away too far from the convoy

3/5 - They should be able to not get stuck against the shore, and choose a "clever" route to avoid coast line and other obstacles.

Detection ability :
2/5 - they should't be able to detect you with hydrophone if you're sailing in the middle of a convoy ;
1/5 - they should't be able to detect you with ASDIC if you're near other ships or near/on the sea bottom ;
1/5 - they should't be able to see you at night (or hardly) with only visual sensor * (in order to be able to conduct realistic night surface attacks, including getting inside convoys without being spotted as some U-Boot's aces did in WWII) ;
1/5 - they should't be able to detect you with hydrophone or ASDIC during/after DC explosions ;
3/5 - hydrophone, ASDIC or radar should not give to the AI your exact position (distance, bearing and depth) nor your course and speed (or hardly).

1/5 - Airplanes shouldn't be able to fly/attack in storm (nor at night, except for special units equiped with radar/Ley light).

1/5 - It should be possible to stop a neutral ship to inspect her cargo, and ask the crew to leave the boat if you think you have to sink this ship. You should be able to detect if the ship is transmitting detress signals with her radio. Some merchant also refusing to stop, and even trying to ramm you.

3/5 - It should be possible to interact with a ship or submarine to refuel or load torpedoes at sea, something more realistic and sophisticated than just sailing to a point, anchor next to a ship/submarine and leaving game and reloading with random addition of fuel and torpedoes.

5/5 - You should be able to operate in wolfpacks, the AI U-Boots being enough clever to report (with useful informations) and follow a convoy without being detected, and choose the best moment and place to attack with torpedoes. The BdU should also give proper orders given the situations, including giving some patrol areas for each U-Boot of the pack.

3/5 - The enemy should be able to send a hunter killer group (if possible) where you have been spotted by visual detection, your radio transmissions (Hf/Df) or intelligence (decoded german encrypted messages with ULTRA).


Campaign and historical aspects

3/5 - All convoys should be historical (dates, route, composition, escort, etc.) *.

2/5 - The BdU should be much more active, telling you where the convoys are, what tactics to use, what new dangers to avoid... Historical messages should be used as much as possible **.

2/5 - Minefields should be historical (areas, density, type of mines, depth) *.


The crew of the playable U-Boot

4/5 - You should have the feeling to be in the shoes of the U-Boot's commander. Not having to do calculations, but only deciding about strategical decisions. You should have a large chat list containing precise orders to give to the crew. In particular, while in a torpedo attack run, a chain of historical orders and replies by the officers and crew members should take place.

2/5 - Repairs to the boat should be realistic. A flooding meaning most of the time surfacing and surrendering... if not too late to die.

2/5 - A crew member should be able to give (limited) medical assistance.


Misc

3/5 - The Earth should be spherical and not flat, in order to have real distances and GPS coordinates (to recreate real events, battles...). You should be able to see a ship disappearing under the horizon when sailing away of it.

1/5 - The distances of visibility should be far greater. In SH3 (with special env mods), the maximum is 20 km, but it can be 100 km in real life.

3/5 - Geography (including sea floor with shallows and reefs) should be accurate, at least in areas where we are often sailing or of historical interest (German and French coast, Scapa Flow, Helgoland...).

2/5 - Harbours should have historical look. U-Boots' bunkers should appear at proper dates.

2/5 - The merchant ships should have a realistic look and reflect variety **.

1/5 - Neutral merchant ships should wear neutrality marks on their hull **.

2/5 - Realistic and meaningful sounds given by the hydrophone.

2/5 - Chlorine gas should appear when the batteries are damaged, with consequences on the crew...

3/5 - All the work around the torpedoes should be more historicaly correct (it was necessary to regularly charge their batteries, to warm up them before launching for greater range, etc.)


The mission editor

1/5 - There should be a way to precisely script the weather for a specific mission over the time (for example : cloudy at the beginning, then little rain 2 hours and 22 minutes later with more wind, then some sun and clouds for 45 minutes, etc.) .

1/5 - It should be possible to script a special behaviour of units for a specific mission (kamikaze attack, or always withdraw attack if there is an any enemy cruiser...).

2/5 - More complexe conditions (with the use of boolean operators) should be available to determine different scenarios. The building of conditions, events, triggers... should be easier (less rigid) and clearer. It should be possible to create missions lasting several days or months.

1/5 - It should be possible to continue to play a mission, regardless of the objectives (all missed or all completed).

1/5 - It should be possible to choose what skin (texture) to apply to each specific unit.

---

What else ? :D

[Anvar1061]

Airplanes should not fly in bad weather.

[John Pancoast]

AOD with current graphics would do. Period. :D Heck, it does even without current graphics.

[Randomizer]

This list could be useful to help developers for a future U-Boot simulation.
<rant on>

Sorry to rain on your parade but this is pure wishful thinking. They have been reading similar content for decades but don't care because the community will largely pay for crappy, new games solely because they're new. Also the trope that "We MUST purchase bad games to encourage SOMEBODY to produce a good one" has proven fallacious time after time.

Arguably since AOD and the original Silent Hunter, posts like this have appeared by the dozen (maybe by the hundreds) and virtually every subsequent submarine simulation sheds features rather than adds to them, often but not always for slick graphics. Producing a glitzy sound and light spectacular is cheaper than a deep simulation that marries strategic and tactical accuracy for the Player with a GUI that captures the essence of the combat submarine commanders role.

<rant off>

AOD with current graphics would do. Period. Heck, it does even without current graphics

This!

-C

[Mister_M]

<rant on>

Sorry to rain on your parade but this is pure wishful thinking. They have been reading similar content for decades but don't care because the community will largely pay for crappy, new games solely because they're new. Also the trope that "We MUST purchase bad games to encourage SOMEBODY to produce a good one" has proven fallacious time after time.

Arguably since AOD and the original Silent Hunter, posts like this have appeared by the dozen (maybe by the hundreds) and virtually every subsequent submarine simulation sheds features rather than adds to them, often but not always for slick graphics. Producing a glitzy sound and light spectacular is cheaper than a deep simulation that marries strategic and tactical accuracy for the Player with a GUI that captures the essence of the combat submarine commanders role.

<rant off>

Thank you for sharing your experience. You're probably right, our crazy capitalist system produces only bull**** to make money, the only goal of this poor world... :nope:

Nevertheless, it's always good to have in mind all the lacking features, in order to have a better idea of what should be a good WWII submarine simulation. :)

And perhaps an "open" submarine simulation will come to life one day, built by passionate guys, there are so many... Graphics are not the most important IMO, only historical accuracy and the feeling to really fight a war, not playing a stupid game.

[John Pancoast]

<rant on>

Sorry to rain on your parade but this is pure wishful thinking. They have been reading similar content for decades but don't care because the community will largely pay for crappy, new games solely because they're new. Also the trope that "We MUST purchase bad games to encourage SOMEBODY to produce a good one" has proven fallacious time after time.

Arguably since AOD and the original Silent Hunter, posts like this have appeared by the dozen (maybe by the hundreds) and virtually every subsequent submarine simulation sheds features rather than adds to them, often but not always for slick graphics. Producing a glitzy sound and light spectacular is cheaper than a deep simulation that marries strategic and tactical accuracy for the Player with a GUI that captures the essence of the combat submarine commanders role.

<rant off>



This!

-C


:Kaleun_Applaud::Kaleun_Applaud::Kaleun_Applaud::u p::up::up::Kaleun_Thumbs_Up::Kaleun_Thumbs_Up::Kal eun_Thumbs_Up:


Nail/head.

[John Pancoast]

One fun thing I would like to see sometime. With a surface attack, have the player able to designate a target(s) for an ai officer to attack with the torpedoes. After designation, the ai would carry out all the actual details/functions of the attack.

Instead of the player, being the commander, having to also be the first officer, navigator, watch crew, etc. all at the same time.

[iambecomelife]

AI UNITS MAKE REALISTIC THREAT ASSESSMENT.

In the Silent Hunter series a destroyer will mindlessly fight a battleship to the death.

In SES Jutland, weaker ships like DD's and Light Cruisers, when they see Dreadnoughts, will use their higher top speed to withdraw out of gun range and shadow you. Then they radio for their own big ship fleets to attack you.

Just like the actual sinking of "Bismarck" ... the British cruisers "Norfolk" and "Suffolk" didn't charge in like madmen; they shadowed her on the horizon and called for "Prince of Wales" & "Hood".

Likewise, in convoy battles, no sending the entire group of escorts after the player submarine. In real life several escorts had to be kept to escort the remaining ships after and attack - also, one or two needed to be used to pick up survivors.

[Randomizer]

I would never use the pathetic AI found in the SES Jutland/Distant Guns games for a standard as it is really pretty pathetic. I certainly have never seen this shadowing behaviour that you refer to and both games time out after 30-minutes or less with no combat. 1st Cruiser Squadron's shadow of Bismarck was some 12-hours and so unreproducable by Jutland because of the timeout issue.

Jutland also used a far too simplistic and entirely linear, points based algorithm to determine the force ratio. The AI, such as it is, will always flee a superior force and always close to suicidal ranges against an inferior force. Since these values are global across the action, it explains why it sometimes behaves in odd ways. I have been told by a source that I trust (of course you do not have to), that the AI also has full, real time knowledge of the strengths and locations of the Player forces and so never suffers from the Fog-of-War.

Try the Coronel scenario as von Spee and you will see that Cradock will always run. Playing as the British see the Germans will soon close to ranges where even little Otranto can get hits with her 4.7" popguns. Every time that I have played the scenario, this cycle of lameness repeats.

The AI in the Steam and Iron franchise does shadow and never times out and makes a far better example of an adequate naval programmed opponent.

-C

[iambecomelife]

I would never use the pathetic AI found in the SES Jutland/Distant Guns games for a standard as it is really pretty pathetic. I certainly have never seen this shadowing behaviour that you refer to and both games time out after 30-minutes or less with no combat. 1st Cruiser Squadron's shadow of Bismarck was some 12-hours and so unreproducable by Jutland because of the timeout issue.

Jutland also used a far too simplistic and entirely linear, points based algorithm to determine the force ratio. The AI, such as it is, will always flee a superior force and always close to suicidal ranges against an inferior force. Since these values are global across the action, it explains why it sometimes behaves in odd ways. I have been told by a source that I trust (of course you do not have to), that the AI also has full, real time knowledge of the strengths and locations of the Player forces and so never suffers from the Fog-of-War.

Try the Coronel scenario as von Spee and you will see that Cradock will always run. Playing as the British see the Germans will soon close to ranges where even little Otranto can get hits with her 4.7" popguns. Every time that I have played the scenario, this cycle of lameness repeats.

The AI in the Steam and Iron franchise does shadow and never times out and makes a far better example of an adequate naval programmed opponent.

-C

Interesting. I was impressed by certain aspects of Jutland's AI (I often used BC's for commerce raiding and the British destroyers would always run from me, as they should). I did not know about all the other issues - hope that the next generation of sims (Wolfpack, Crash Dive) fix this.


Another issue - rescuing survivors. That's another issue that historically limited Allied escorts - several ships were sunk rescuing merchant crews, and naturally the Allied navies found that leaving lifeboats behind was bad for merchant ship crews' morale. All the more reason to NOT have every single escort come charging after the player's sub once torpedoes hit a ship. No need for a complex animation (although that would be nice) - just have 1 or 2 corvettes/DD's approach a sinking ship for 10-20 minutes...maybe animate some men climbing up a Jacob's Ladder.

[Mister_M]

Battle between surface ships is not the goal of a submarine simulation. In the Battle of the Atlantic, playing as a submarine, you will probably never see any german battleship in action. Moreover, destroyers can attack with torpedoes at night. The night before Bismarck was sunk, she was chased during hours by several british destroyers which tried to torpedoe her, but they were repulsed by Bismarck artillery.

About escorts of a convoy, you can have only one or two escort ships attacking you, while the others stay in escort position, simply by choosing the level (veteran and elite will attack you, medium and less will stay in position). But yes, a better and more realistic coordination between AI escort units would be nice.

About picking survivors, well it's no more than eye candy for me. You can add small ships (like trawlers) at the end of the convoy to simulate this. But yes, it would be cool to see a recue ship coming near a sinking vessel and stay a moment.

About surface attack done only by your crew, a historical chain of commands would be good, there would be an officer on the bridge to set the torpedo's data. You would be able to talk directly to the interior of the u-boot with the voice tubes to order to set torpedo's speed, flood tube, etc ...), and crew could talk to you either (like tube 1 ready for fire, etc.). So, have a chat list instead of GUI's buttons like the "fire" button, and a whole algorithm for the crew to answer you, depending on the situation. The game's goal being to simulate the u-boot's commander position, even if you would be able to do some manual adjustments (like tweaking TDC's data).

[iambecomelife]

-Proper portrayal of dud ammunition. In my opinion, many iterations of Silent Hunter 4 STILL did not portray the extent of Mk XIV's unreliability .... I felt like I was sinking too many ships in 1942-1943. Same goes for dud shells. There are no dud shells in stock SH3-SH4, and there is no way to get dud shells without negatively affecting all shell performance (you can add duds using the modding tool S3ditor but this impacts all min-max damage values).

-Accurate sound/visual/radar signatures for all objects. I am pretty sure that the calculation process for detection in SH3/4 is pretty crude. Enemy vessels should have varying detection percentages via radar for locating, say, a raised snorkel versus an entire submarine surfaced.

Radar (especially early radar) should have very serious problems with clutter/landmasses in the way until historical refinements are made.

[Mister_M]

Accurate sound/visual/radar signatures for all objects. I am pretty sure that the calculation process for detection in SH3/4 is pretty crude. Enemy vessels should have varying detection percentages via radar for locating, say, a raised snorkel versus an entire submarine surfaced.

Radar (especially early radar) should have very serious problems with clutter/landmasses in the way until historical refinements are made.

I agree with you, but this would require a lot of work and research, and the help of specialists. The goal being to simulate the real behaviour of very complexe devices, operating in various natural situations... So, probably impossible to be accurate for this part of simulation... :o

[Mad Mardigan]

I agree with you, but this would require a lot of work and research, and the help of specialists. The goal being to simulate the real behavior of very complex devices, operating in various natural situations... So, probably impossible to be accurate for this part of simulation... :o

I beg to differ...

Sim's, have come a long way, since the very 1st started off... could name pretty much all the oldie but goodies, that started off the simulation genre... to the more... modern ones... for the sake of brevity here (& besides, pretty much most here, already know the names of them.. :hmmm:) but, the point is... over time they have improved.

Does that mean that they are perfect... No, far from it, but... there is still room, for improvement. Case in point, SH5... *facepalms* just to name 1... thanks to those modding it, have made it not the dumpster fire it was, when Ubi 1st shoved it out the door & under the proverbial bus... all for the sake of a fast buck... (Thanks, Ubi... NOT.)

With the abled bodied assistance of those self same people, add in modders with a love for it... I foresee when sim's will be more in line with the ability of simulating actual conditions... minus the user, actually being in the given situational aspect, of course. But, who knows.. maybe that might be able to be added in later on... simulated, of course. :hmmm: food for thought... :yep:

:Kaleun_Salute:

M. M.

[Mister_M]

Probably submarine simulations are harder to create than "first-person shooter" types... :D

A submarine is something very complexe (you can still visit existing WWII submarines to understand what I'm thinking about), and it operates in a complexe element (the sea)... Moreover, the battle of the Atlantic was also a very complexe battle which lasted for several years... So, not very "money-making" simulation in the end... and also because it's played by far less people...

[Mister_M]

AOD with current graphics would do. Period. :D Heck, it does even without current graphics.

What has AOD more than SH3 ?

[John Pancoast]

What has AOD more than SH3 ?


In a nutshell, many, many mods that have been made for SH3 were to replicate something already in AOD, and in AOD they work whereas in SH3, they may only kind of/sort of work because of the game limitations a modder has to work with in SH3. And some items that are in AOD are still not in SH3.

In terms of simulating the Battle of the Atlantic, the only things SH3 has over AOD are graphics and manual targeting.
If one enjoys SH3, they owe it to themselves to try AOD. But they'll have to change their tactics; the sloppy tactics one can use in SH3 will get one sunk every time in AOD, as AOD simulates escort/aircraft/convoy behavior much better/realistically. :)

[Bubblehead1980]

Proper dark nights and ability to conduct realistic night surface attacks, including getting inside convoys as some boats did.

In SH 4, I have made this possible via adjustments of sim.cfg, additions of darker nights, and adjustment to visual sensors in the Pacific side of things and plan to try in SH 4 ATO mods and SH 3 in near future.

works great actually. However, if this was inherent into the design of the sim, would work better.

HUGE oversight/omission by devs to not make this possible in the stock version.

AI subs capable of conducting realistic torpedo attacks--friendly and enemy as well. Have them in SH 4 as well now, but still would be better if was a "natural" element of SH 4.

Like you said, historical traffic out of the box so us modders do not have to spend time doing this tedious task so have a realistic campaign.


A spherical earth with ACCURATE geography and detailed map with realistic weather. Really is shameful how things are in the stock games.

[Mister_M]

Proper dark nights and ability to conduct realistic night surface attacks, including getting inside convoys as some boats did.

In SH 4, I have made this possible via adjustments of sim.cfg, additions of darker nights, and adjustment to visual sensors in the Pacific side of things and plan to try in SH 4 ATO mods and SH 3 in near future.

I very would like that for SH3...


works great actually. However, if this was inherent into the design of the sim, would work better.

HUGE oversight/omission by devs to not make this possible in the stock version.

AI subs capable of conducting realistic torpedo attacks--friendly and enemy as well. Have them in SH 4 as well now, but still would be better if was a "natural" element of SH 4.

Like you said, historical traffic out of the box so us modders do not have to spend time doing this tedious task so have a realistic campaign.

A spherical earth with ACCURATE geography and detailed map with realistic weather. Really is shameful how things are in the stock games.

:yep:

[SnipersHunter]

AOD with current graphics would do. Period. :D Heck, it does even without current graphics.

This plus full manual tdc and the possibility for celnav

[John Pancoast]

This plus full manual tdc and the possibility for celnav


Understood, though I prefer the mode of commander vs. navigator, etc.

[Mister_M]

AOD simulates escort/aircraft/convoy behavior much better/realistically. :)

Well, I saw a gameplay video on youtube and I didn't see AI being better... :hmmm:

How is AI better in AOD ?

And some items that are in AOD are still not in SH3.

Could you be more specific ?

[John Pancoast]

Well, I saw a gameplay video on youtube and I didn't see AI being better... :hmmm:

How is AI better in AOD ?



Could you be more specific ?


Well, basing an opinion on anything (including SH3) via a youtube clip is like getting one's facts from wikpedia. :) Some quick replies as I'm out the door.
Anyway, regarding the AI: in a nutshell they hunt better. I.e., no silly peeling off a convoy at regular intervals to leave the convoy flank completely exposed ala SH3, the AOD escorts are placed and spaced correctly around the convoys, and when submerged they're an actual threat vs. the SH3 escorts cream puffs.

I could go on and on but as I said earlier; if one is interested in the Battle of the Atlantic subject, one really owes it to themselves to try AOD (cd-rom version; not caod) and see for themselves. Easier than trying to explain it. But you'll have to change your tactics from SH3 to be more realistic to (maybe) survive.

I'm always surprised at the number of SH3 players and modders that haven't ever played AOD.


Regarding missing features, etc., the same advice above applies; try AOD. But just a few are: Escorts use asdic as their primary search equipment as was historically the case, unlike SH3's only using it after hydrophone contact. Moonlight has an affect. Convoy noise can hide your boat when under the convoy. Depth charge noise masking. (though with the weak SH3 escorts, these two aren't really needed in SH3) Hunter/killer groups that are actual hunter/killer groups that have the correct aircraft and tactics. Wolfpacks that call *you* in vs. you only being able to call them in.
Also, the AOD damage/repair model is leagues above the SH3 one.

[Mister_M]

Well, basing an opinion on anything (including SH3) via a youtube clip is like getting one's facts from wikpedia. :)

Sure, but I don't base my judgment only on this video, that's why I'm asking you to describe the game better. :03:

if one is interested in the Battle of the Atlantic subject, one really owes it to themselves to try AOD (cd-rom version; not caod) and see for themselves. Easier than trying to explain it.

I'm always surprised at the number of SH3 players and modders that haven't ever played AOD.

Indeed, when reading your description , I really want to try it myself. I've already tried to download from internet, but it didn't work. You wrote "cd-rom version, not caod". What does "caod" mean ?

Escorts use asdic as their primary search equipment as was historically the case, unlike SH3's only using it after hydrophone contact.

Well, that's not correct. I've finally understood that the escorts are constantly using ASDIC even before you have been detected. But when you hear a "ping", that means that the AI has just detected you. You don't hear any ping if you are not in the search pattern. And if you hear the ping, then the AI will hear it too and detect you. But indeed, you can't hear any ping before AI detects you, and you should hear it from far distance (I guess :hmmm:) but not so loud...

[John Pancoast]

Sure, but I don't base my judgment only on this video, that's why I'm asking you to describe the game better. :03:



Indeed, when reading your description , I really want to try it myself. I've already tried to download from internet, but it didn't work. You wrote "cd-rom version, not caod". What does "caod" mean ?



Well, that's not correct. I've finally understood that the escorts are constantly using ASDIC even before you have been detected. But when you hear a "ping", that means that the AI has just detected you. You don't hear any ping if you are not in the search pattern. And if you hear the ping, then the AI will hear it too and detect you. But indeed, you can't hear any ping before AI detects you, and you should hear it from far distance (I guess :hmmm:) but not so loud...


CAOD (Command Aces of the Deep) was a win95 version of AOD. But it is buggy. The cd version of AOD is best for several reasons; 1. easy to install via cd. 2. Not buggy like caod. 3. Has several interesting additions on the cd; video interviews, a well done history/tactics section, etc.


Regarding SH3 and audible asdic, I have seen several claims of the "silent asdic" method but have never found any proof being provided of such.
Maybe I missed such. Wouldn't be the first time.

[Mister_M]

CAOD (Command Aces of the Deep) was a win95 version of AOD. But it is buggy. The cd version of AOD is best for several reasons; 1. easy to install via cd. 2. Not buggy like caod. 3. Has several interesting additions on the cd; video interviews, a well done history/tactics section, etc.

OK, thank you for the explanation. :up:

Another question : Is it possible in AOD to go inside a convoy on the surface at night without being detected (providing that the escort is not fitted with radar of course) ?

[Randomizer]

OK, thank you for the explanation. :up:

Another question : Is it possible in AOD to go inside a convoy on the surface at night without being detected (providing that the escort is not fitted with radar of course) ?
If the night is dark enough, check the moon phase and relative location. If you keep your speed low enough not to produce a visible wake. If the escorts lack radar. If you do not do something dumb like trying to use the deck gun.

With Wolfpacks out of the box in AOD, you can really exploit a pack attack before radar becomes common and spoils all of your fun.

In AOD when one escort goes after a U-Boat, the remainder redeploy to continue coverage of the convoy and this will help facilitate getting into the convoy proper. but doing so is seldom easy.

Convoy escorts will often not hunt you to destruction because they need to rejoin their convoy. Support Groups on the other hand have nothing better to do and are difficult to escape from.

-C

[John Pancoast]

OK, thank you for the explanation. :up:

Another question : Is it possible in AOD to go inside a convoy on the surface at night without being detected (providing that the escort is not fitted with radar of course) ?


Yes, since the convoy spacing, size, etc. is more correct. Per Randomizer's excellent post anyway. But don't forget merchants also being armed.
Also, the escorts use radar much more effectively/realistically in AOD. Wait until you have a destroyer screaming down at you at full speed and your only option is to crash dive (since they're going much faster than you) and pray. :)
And pay attention to aircraft; they're to be respected vs. not so much in SH3.

[Mister_M]

Thank you both of you to give more light on this old but well made game. The AI appears much better than in SH3 indeed. Back then, having only the possibility of ugly graphics, the dev's were forced to do efforts to make the game at least "interesting" (AI + historically correct)....

[l02turner]

I play single missions in SH4 and I'd like the option to extend game play past successful completion of a mission. I have had missions end abruptly after I sink a BB or other mission requirements. I'd like to be able to choose to extend the mission until i successfully evade their escorts or return to a home base.

[Mister_M]

Well, I finally managed to download and play AOTD. The AI looks fine (more subtile escort, merchant ships trying to evade... I didn't test airplanes), but the extremly bad looking ships through periscope is a total game killer for me, I don't even know what course the targets have, I can't see only pixels on the sea surface.... :k_confused: So, you mainly play with the nav map screen, which I find not very realistic. Also, you can't operate hydrophone, which is a big flaw. It's also necessary to find proper shortcuts, because playing only with the mouse is a nightmare...

But indeed, it's a new point of view of Sub simulation compared to SH3, and it's a pity that SH3 is not an improvment of AOTD... :up:

[John Pancoast]

Well, I finally managed to download and play AOTD. The AI looks fine (more subtile escort, merchant ships trying to evade... I didn't test airplanes), but the extremly bad looking ships through periscope is a total game killer for me, I don't even know what course the targets have, I can't see only pixels on the sea surface.... :k_confused: So, you mainly play with the nav map screen, which I find not very realistic. Also, you can't operate hydrophone, which is a big flaw. It's also necessary to find proper shortcuts, because playing only with the mouse is a nightmare...

But indeed, it's a new point of view of Sub simulation compared to SH3, and it's a pity that SH3 is not an improvment of AOTD... :up:


Target's course, speed, and bearing is in your scope/uzo view info. panel. And the nav. map info. box too of course. Once a ship/convoy is close enough, it's easier to do so visually.
Regarding the nav. map, I don't have a problem with that as a lot of time is spent at it in SH3 too and doing so in any game is a way to provide situational awareness on a computer, that a person would have as is irl.
I also don't care about working the hydrophone, etc., including in SH3; I prefer to be the commander, not each crew member, i.e. But I understand others prefer to access multiple stations.

A shortcut guide comes with the game, probably online too somewhere.
Anyway, glad you got to try it ! :salute:

[Randomizer]

The graphics vs. content conundrum is probably unsolvable so we can set it aside. As is realism since the delivery of data in AOD is not at all what one would see on a U-Boat in the Atlantic but the situations presented to the Player are much more historically and technically reasonable than those in even modded SH3/4. In effect AOD presents realistic situations in a gamy, 1990's fashion, when the mouse was an innovation and most gamers relied on the keyboard.

So graphics and realism are entirely subjective red herrings and since developers steadfastly refuse to provide a simulation with both, enjoy your sound and light spectacular; imagery over substantive tactical problem solving.

The immersion myth is another red herring as I have found myself more immersed in AOD situations than has ever happened in the SH franchise. I get my immersion from my imagination and have no expectation that it will be provided by the developers via visual cues.
extremely bad looking ships through periscope is a total game killer for me
No surprize here but AOD is very deep (pun intended) and there is a lot going on under the hood that is lost if you write it off for its clunky graphics and (mostly) crappy sound.

-C

[John Pancoast]

The graphics vs. content conundrum is probably unsolvable so we can set it aside. As is realism since the delivery of data in AOD is not at all what one would see on a U-Boat in the Atlantic but the situations presented to the Player are much more historically and technically reasonable than those in even modded SH3/4. In effect AOD presents realistic situations in a gamy, 1990's fashion, when the mouse was an innovation and most gamers relied on the keyboard.

So graphics and realism are entirely subjective red herrings and since developers steadfastly refuse to provide a simulation with both, enjoy your sound and light spectacular; imagery over substantive tactical problem solving.

The immersion myth is another red herring as I have found myself more immersed in AOD situations than has ever happened in the SH franchise. I get my immersion from my imagination and have no expectation that it will be provided by the developers via visual cues.

No surprize here but AOD is very deep (pun intended) and there is a lot going on under the hood that is lost if you write it off for its clunky graphics and (mostly) crappy sound.

-C


:up::up::up:

[Mister_M]

I understand your point of view. You have probably played this game before SH3 was created, so you are judging SH3 with AOD as a "reference". I do the same thing myself, but SH3 being my reference. Well, probably, deception is more influencing our judgment than joy for the improved features. So, you were so disappointed by SH3's AI that you state that AOD is a better "simulation", and I probably do the same. Yes, we can't stand a regression compared to what we have already played, so we get angry and leave.

I will try to play more missions with AOD, but I need to learn the game's "logic" (way of working), and also the keyboard shortcuts. For example, when a DD is coming for a DC attack, what are your options to increase your chance of survival (apart from praying :D) ? By the way, it was very "anxiogene" when I heard DD's propellers coming over me, well done, i guess it's a main feature ! :up:

Else, the very first convoy mission I've played was disappointing. I didn't see any ship on the surface (even with bino), so I asked the Watch officer to give me contacts, and he said ennemy bearing 348°. So I looked with bino at 348 (of my sub) and saw nothing. So I sailed full speed on new course (south) but still nothing. Then, after several minutes, I went to the nav map and saw points north of me. Some time later, I discovered that it was in fact the COURSE of the convoy which was 348°. Is it a known issue ?

[John Pancoast]

I understand your point of view. You have probably played this game before SH3 was created, so you are judging SH3 with AOD as a "reference". I do the same thing myself, but SH3 being my reference. Well, probably, deception is more influencing our judgment than joy for the improved features. So, you were so disappointed by SH3's AI that you state that AOD is a better "simulation", and I probably do the same. Yes, we can't stand a regression compared to what we have already played, so we get angry and leave.

I will try to play more missions with AOD, but I need to learn the game's "logic" (way of working), and also the keyboard shortcuts. For example, when a DD is coming for a DC attack, what are your options to increase your chance of survival (apart from praying :D) ? By the way, it was very "anxiogene" when I heard DD's propellers coming over me, well done, i guess it's a main feature ! :up:

Else, the very first convoy mission I've played was disappointing. I didn't see any ship on the surface (even with bino), so I asked the Watch officer to give me contacts, and he said ennemy bearing 348°. So I looked with bino at 348 (of my sub) and saw nothing. So I sailed full speed on new course (south) but still nothing. Then, after several minutes, I went to the nav map and saw points north of me. Some time later, I discovered that it was in fact the COURSE of the convoy which was 348°. Is it a known issue ?


In terms of escort evasion, if I'm being chased I like to double back on them once submerged and try to go under them. I.e., if they're course is 90 degrees, I would turn to 270.
If already submerged and being hunted, depth is your friend, along with speed. However, anything past 180 meters allows water to seep in, which activates bilge pumps to get rid of it. Bilge pump/compressed air noise is detected in AOD, unlike SH3. Pay attention to your gauges via the G key. Silent running helps, but unlike SH3, you can't leave it always on as water will seep in the boat since silent running turns off the pumps.
Otherwise the usual tactics; keep your profile correct. I like to change depth, speed, and maybe course when depth charges are coming.

Depth charge noise will cover you in AOD, unlike SH3, so that's a good time for evasion too. Unlike SH3 where you can many times ignore the escorts and what they're up to while being hunted, in AOD one needs to pay attention to them.


Also, pay attention to the red spokes showing the escorts asdic. If they move fast, the escort is close and vice versa.
Going to take some experimenting to get the hang of things since you don't have a manual/cd.


I'm not sure I understand your ship finding example, sorry.

[John Pancoast]

I think I now understand your ship finding problem example. AOD bearings are usually the *true* bearing. I.e., in your example the ship was at 348 true, not 348 from your course.

[John Pancoast]

Another tip when on the surface. Unlike SH3 where all your watch crew does is notify you of a ship approaching/seen and you have to check yourself if it's an escort or something else, AOD's crew will tell you if such ship is an escort or not. Can help assessing danger or not.
However, all of the AOD crew's functions are dependent on crew quality; green crews aren't as good at them as elite crews, i.e.

[Mad Mardigan]

I also don't care about working the hydrophone, etc., including in SH3; I prefer to be the commander, not each crew member, i.e. But I understand others prefer to access multiple stations.

This... this right here, was what I tried to get through to kyle about them & others running that uboat flotilla group via discord.

In that, is the unwavering stipulation, to partake in it... of using no weap's officer assist.

Everything else in that, I was down with... but for that.... for that very self same reason.

Thanks, it is nice to know that there are others who share that same view point.

:Kaleun_Salute:

M. M.

[John Pancoast]

This... this right here, was what I tried to get through to kyle about them & others running that uboat flotilla group via discord.

In that, is the unwavering stipulation, to partake in it... of using no weap's officer assist.

Everything else in that, I was down with... but for that.... for that very self same reason.

Thanks, it is nice to know that there are others who share that same view point.

:Kaleun_Salute:

M. M.


:up: Completely understand and agree.

[Randomizer]

To be fair, placing AOD on a sub simulation pedestal should probably carry an entire hockey sock of caveats but it was certainly ground-breaking in 1994. The problem with this view is that it sadly demonstrates the complete failure of developer after developer to produce an out-of-the-box game with the level of detail representative of the Battle of the Atlantic and the U-Boat commander's tiny piece of it as a whole, in the intervening 25+ years.

AOD certainly has issues, mine will often crash when reporting a convoy (the infamous "Smoke on the horizon Captain" crash. The use of true vice relative bearings, particularly for hydrophone contacts, has been mentioned and the AA guns are probably over-powered. Also, your boat has far greater range than it should have and a Type VII can easily spend a couple of weeks off North America without needing a tanker.

That said, late-war escorts may have Foxers and these make passive hunting your boat much more difficult. Hedgehog works and can be deadly. BdU will send you to new patrol areas, Liberator bombers can carry FIDO homing torpedoes and you can abandon ship, all without any external modding.

I do have fun with the SH franchise, all heavily modded (Thanks to all concerned) but AOD presents situations and problems that still escape even the most talented Modders decades after the games' releases. This is not an indictment of the Players or the Modders but rather one against the developers, who time and again fail to replicate the sitautions and AI of an almost 30-year old program, written in DOS and barely 13 Mb in size.

A pox on all of their houses...

-C

[John Pancoast]

To be fair, placing AOD on a sub simulation pedestal should probably carry an entire hockey sock of caveats but it was certainly ground-breaking in 1994. The problem with this view is that it sadly demonstrates the complete failure of developer after developer to produce an out-of-the-box game with the level of detail representative of the Battle of the Atlantic and the U-Boat commander's tiny piece of it as a whole, in the intervening 25+ years.

AOD certainly has issues, mine will often crash when reporting a convoy (the infamous "Smoke on the horizon Captain" crash. The use of true vice relative bearings, particularly for hydrophone contacts, has been mentioned and the AA guns are probably over-powered. Also, your boat has far greater range than it should have and a Type VII can easily spend a couple of weeks off North America without needing a tanker.

That said, late-war escorts may have Foxers and these make passive hunting your boat much more difficult. Hedgehog works and can be deadly. BdU will send you to new patrol areas, Liberator bombers can carry FIDO homing torpedoes and you can abandon ship, all without any external modding.

I do have fun with the SH franchise, all heavily modded (Thanks to all concerned) but AOD presents situations and problems that still escape even the most talented Modders decades after the games' releases. This is not an indictment of the Players or the Modders but rather one against the developers, who time and again fail to replicate the sitautions and AI of an almost 30-year old program, written in DOS and barely 13 Mb in size.

A pox on all of their houses...

-C


Another well written post. :up: Though I've never experienced the ctd mentioned, I can relate very well to the hockey reference being in NW Minnysoda myself.....:D

[Randomizer]

TY. For those perhaps unaware, a hockey sock is f-n huge...

-C

Note: Implied expletive added for emphasis.

[Mister_M]

To be fair, placing AOD on a sub simulation pedestal should probably carry an entire hockey sock of caveats but it was certainly ground-breaking in 1994. The problem with this view is that it sadly demonstrates the complete failure of developer after developer to produce an out-of-the-box game with the level of detail representative of the Battle of the Atlantic and the U-Boat commander's tiny piece of it as a whole, in the intervening 25+ years.

This is not an indictment of the Players or the Modders but rather one against the developers, who time and again fail to replicate the sitautions and AI of an almost 30-year old program, written in DOS and barely 13 Mb in size.

A pox on all of their houses...

Maybe it's IQ decreasing year after year ? :doh:

We should also keep in mind that they are not free, and often or always asked to produce games in a short time. So, having to work harder on the graphics side, they have less time for history and AI codding... This is just a guess...

Graphics have now reached an incredible level. It would be time to work on other aspects, and AI is the main objective. But maybe it requires more clever devs... i don't know.

[propbeanie]

ditto John Pancoast and Randomizer. For me, Up Periscope, Red Storm Rising and a few others were dipping my toes into the subs, and lead me to SSI/Aegis's Silent Hunter (the original) and AOD. I made myself boot disks to get those running on my anemic systems back then. So I was so hopeful when SH II came out, with Destroyer Command, and never so disappointed... until SH3, then SH4, then SH5... time after time... Only modders have made the "modern" games playable, especially SH5. All the SH games are over at least 10 years old, and the engine is over 15. What is really a shame is the money. No, games are not free, but they are also not inexpensive. If they worked out of the box, fine, but... From my perspective, having been a paid programmer for a short time, is that they bought too much pizza and Mountain Dew (or coke, with a small "C") with the money, and did not spend enough money to properly find out how the previous version of the game worked. Kind of slapped something together and Ubi shoved it out the door (except SHII which took forever)... Don't have time to do it right the first time, but we do have time to go back and try to fix it, and do that again, and again, and again...

- sorry... apologies to the OP and Topic... lol - but seriously, why was SH II / Destroyer Command never followed up on? The possibilities are endless.

[John Pancoast]

ditto John Pancoast and Randomizer. For me, Up Periscope, Red Storm Rising and a few others were dipping my toes into the subs, and lead me to SSI/Aegis's Silent Hunter (the original) and AOD. I made myself boot disks to get those running on my anemic systems back then. So I was so hopeful when SH II came out, with Destroyer Command, and never so disappointed... until SH3, then SH4, then SH5... time after time... Only modders have made the "modern" games playable, especially SH5. All the SH games are over at least 10 years old, and the engine is over 15. What is really a shame is the money. No, games are not free, but they are also not inexpensive. If they worked out of the box, fine, but... From my perspective, having been a paid programmer for a short time, is that they bought too much pizza and Mountain Dew (or coke, with a small "C") with the money, and did not spend enough money to properly find out how the previous version of the game worked. Kind of slapped something together and Ubi shoved it out the door (except SHII which took forever)... Don't have time to do it right the first time, but we do have time to go back and try to fix it, and do that again, and again, and again...

- sorry... apologies to the OP and Topic... lol - but seriously, why was SH II / Destroyer Command never followed up on? The possibilities are endless.


:up: Sometimes I think it actually take more work/time/money to do things wrong vs. right in the first place.

[Randomizer]

+1 PB, thanks.

I still have the SH2 disk and got Destroyer Command up and running, such as it is while leaving the former in its case. I had forgotten how heartbreaking SH2 was on arrival, with so many positive expectations drowned in a slough of mouldering, stinking, ooze upon delivery.

-C

[Mister_M]

+1 PB, thanks.

I still have the SH2 disk and got Destroyer Command up and running, such as it is while leaving the former in its case. I had forgotten how heartbreaking SH2 was on arrival, with so many positive expectations drowned in a slough of mouldering, stinking, ooze upon delivery.

-C

By the way, what about SH1 ? :)

[John Pancoast]

SH1 was much better out of the box than the following SH versions.

[FUBAR295]

I still have the SH2 disk and got Destroyer Command up and running, such as it is while leaving the former in its case. I had forgotten how heartbreaking SH2 was on arrival, with so many positive expectations drowned in a slough of mouldering, stinking, ooze upon delivery.

-C

My big disappointment with SH2 was no dynamic campaign and missions had to be written out. Col777's Kreigstanz was a big help in setting up missions.

Good hunting,
FUBAR295

[derstosstrupp]

I play AotD with several “personal rules” which I plan on drafting up and posting at some point, but one of them is I have to “earn” the ability to use the tactical chart to aid the approach. I keep it zoomed in always so I can’t practically see anything. When I sight a target, I pay attention to the “targeting cross” on the ship. When it gets bright, meaning its data has been figured out, only then may I zoom the chart out and use that as a reference.

This adds quite a challenge, is a good compromise and forces you to try to match course and speed parallel for a while as in real life to get the data prior to doing anything else.

[John Pancoast]

I play AotD with several “personal rules” which I plan on drafting up and posting at some point, but one of them is I have to “earn” the ability to use the tactical chart to aid the approach. I keep it zoomed in always so I can’t practically see anything. When I sight a target, I pay attention to the “targeting cross” on the ship. When it gets bright, meaning its data has been figured out, only then may I zoom the chart out and use that as a reference.

This adds quite a challenge, is a good compromise and forces you to try to match course and speed parallel for a while as in real life to get the data prior to doing anything else.


Good stuff. Personally, I consider the chart (including the one in SH3), etc. as an aid to make up for the lack of situational awareness/crew info. one would be given as commander irl vs. a computer. Even standing on the bridge in SH3, one's field of view is nothing like it would be irl, i.e.
For that matter, I also like the true bearings AOD gives you; simulates the info. a crew member would figure out/plot and give you as commander anyway.
Plus, it's something that always has to be determined even in SH3. AOD just does it for you instead, which as I prefer the role of commander vs. a handful of crew members, seems about right to me.

[l02turner]

1. I'd like to have the ability to create realistic weather more easily.
2. I'd like the torp tracks to be more visible.
3. Are there any additional commands not shown in the Manual? If so I'd like to be able to find them more easily.

[Mister_M]

1. I'd like to have the ability to create realistic weather more easily.
2. I'd like the torp tracks to be more visible.
3. Are there any additional commands not shown in the Manual? If so I'd like to be able to find them more easily.

1. Yes, me too.
2. Is this historically correct ?
3. I don't know, but probably not.