View Full Version : A few new ideas
Index of ideas by theme. (Number of stars denotes imho better/more pressing ideas for implementation)
Page 1:
1. Non-functional crew around boat.
2. Mouse cursors. IMPLEMENTED
3. Animated underfloor retrieval of reloads. *
4. Access to battery compartments.
5. Ability to kneel.
6. Greater trim changes with firing of torpedoes.
7. Playable escorts. *****
8. Longitudinal trim balance tanks. **
9. Wrist-watch view.
10. Convoy stragglers.
11. Selectable German or English dials/labels/signage
12. Interval between successive ASDIC acquisitions if DC's are dropped.
13. Salinity
14. Thermal layers
15. "Soaping" depth charges. (for greater depth before detonation)
16. Squeaking valves.
17. Using lavatories to go "AFK". (see also #33.) **
18. Captains microphones IMPLEMENTED via other means.
Page 2:
19.
20. Reworking of attenuation.
21. Huff-Duff (High Frequency DF).
22. Crouching/kneeling/Sitting position for avatars.
23. Rework of crush-depth, incremental damage/flooding from deep operation and session randomisation. *****
Page 3:
24. Packet-loss indicator for first 10 minutes of a game.
25. Ability to toggle in-game voice mic and in game voice sound off and on IMPLEMENTED
26. Better star-shells.
27. Radio - medium complexity.
28. Per boat radio complexity, to allow real-morse and simple radio in same game. (See also #49) *
29. Post game replay of specific events from exterior view.
30. Observer position (aka compressor chap) IMPLEMENTED
31. Improved stop-watches.
32. Expandable menu for audio option sound effects & main sound menus. *****
33. afk mechanism using lavatories. ***
Page 4:
34. Damageable internal equipment/effects from DC attacks. *****
35. Camera shake during depth charging. *****
36. Variable individual items of uniform.
37. The need to reform the Radio compartment.
38. Ships slowed by damage. *
39. 3rd party "water-spouts from DC attacks". ***
40. Concealable lobby-settings. *****
41. Semi-autonomous offline U-boats.
42. Differentiation between boats internally.
43. Minefields
44. "Direction-finding"
45. Leigh-light equipped Wellingtons in the ASV role at night.
Page 5:
46. Variable "known" distances, times and other AI behaviour. *****
47. U-boat development.
48. "Convoy commander" *****
49. Change lobby simple-radio choice to a per-boat choice, not a lobby choice.
50. Variable height and build of crew and officers.
51. "Alarm" bells in every compartment except lavatories. *****
52. Sea-gulls in coastal waters (in daylight) as an aid to detections and determining convoy heading.
53. "Silent running" - Using amplitude of player's voices in in-game comms to
influence whether or not a detection is made via hydrophones. *****
(see also #81)
54. Collapsing bulkheads, boiler explosions (and other sounds) during sinkings.
55. Observer mode on escorts or merchants.
56. Independently settable brightness for outside and at the eye-piece of periscope views, and another for inside. (two sliders)
57. Gain to range placard at hydrophone station.
58. Other sea areas: Gibraltar strait, Atlantic in, and outside of, the "air-gap", the Med', etc
59. Visible avatar breath in cold temperatures.
60. Lip movement when talking.
Page 6:
61. Valve open/closed position earlier in rotation that full movement. ***
62. Moving the forward torpedo to the side.
63. "Part time" roles/tasks
64. Neutral ships in workshop missions.
65. Ability to mark ships as "Do not sink" on the "identified ships" page.
66. "Rauchen verboten" (no smoking) in dull-red on inside walls of bunker.
67. A "spawn unit" addition to the mission editor.
68. Segmented "liftable" centre deck-plates in torpedo rooms.
69. 2nd strike of the C key causes that series of menus to disappear.
70. Other boats hits and sinkings represented on logbook in parentheses. *****
71. Reform of "workshop" tool.
72. Avatar customisation as persistent player appearance.
73. Sea bed composition.
74. Ability to save images of the map, logbook, radio-log and mission-end screen with a single key.
Page 7:
75. Difficulty setting - Escorts. *****
76. "long games".
77. "Technical notes".
78. Sound-effect of morse-key being operated "clack clack....clack"
79. Cargo-specific effects of torpedoes.
80. Using the battery breakers (trips) as a variable for reversible depth-charge damage.
81. In game voice, possible detection of voices via hydrophones
82. Numbers on exterior?
83. Variable hydrophone range. *
84. Morse aid for sending. *
85. Restoration and improvement of radio-log. ***
86. Occasional random escorts joining/departing convoy. **
87. Falling debris - and splashes - after torpedo hit. *
Page 8:
88. Speed of sound propagation in air/water.... ***
89. Listing, broken-keels and by the stem/stern sinkings. ***
90. Merchants pitching, rolling, yawing in heavy seas.
91. No safe depth from ASDIC/Hydrophones/DC's *****
92. Shout accompanying the "Alarm bell".
93. Difficulty level bonuses. *****
94. Merchant search-lights reacting to each other.
95. Analogue detection ranges. **
96. Variable alert behaviour. **
97. Cumulative tonnage and surviving contiguous patrol count black board.
98. Thoughts on classes of damage, possible framework for gameplay. *****
99. Ability to "lock" other boats. **
100. Thoughts on the need for playable escorts. *****
101. Visual distinction between (NPC) bots and live players.
102. Translucent sea "death cam" and "torpedo cam".
Page 9:
103. Hissing noises of compressed air in the control-room.
104. Cupboards and contents - and depth-charges.
105. Hurricane lamps - or similar portable lamps.
106. New players voices - who is whom?
107. Crossing convoys.
108. Pitch roll and yaw.
109. Crowd-sourced "ship skins". **
110. Different AI behaviour for different types of escort. ***
111. Intermittent sonar setting, in addition to always on and always off. *
112. AI gunnery accuracy proportional to illumination. ***
113. Viewable interior of u-boat from outside, without pressure-hull etc.
114. Periodic high amperage draw for cooker/electric torpedo battery heating/u-boat heating.
Page 10:
115. Thoughts on escort radar implementation....... ***
116. Idea for obtaining passwords to locked lobbies. *
117. Changing alert/de-alert behaviour to allow prolonged dc attacks in multi-boat games. *****
118. "Typed" potential crew-list of players in game, but not in lobby.
119. Volumetric clouds and line-squalls.
120. A wish-list of general improvements.
121. Flags for player languages.
122. Yells, bells and smells.
123. "standing orders". *****
124. Two-crew deck-gun? **
Page 11
125. Smoke from diesels varying detection-range. ***
126. Add three-letter group to beginning of typed text, denoting current role.
127. "Whisper text"
128. Thoughts on aircraft.
129. Adjustment to AI gunnery accuracy, and to 3rd party sounds of incoming
shells. - and alarm-bells and abandon-ship/death! ***
130."May I have the password?" / "u-boats fielded" ***
131. "Bolt-on events"
132. Emotes (mappable to any key):
133. Coloured name tags - hours in role?
134. Ability for escorts to "make smoke".
135. Creeping attacks.
136. No roll option - to prevent nausea.
Page 12.
137. Variable inertia (as a lobby setting) - "easy to realistic"
138. Sound improvements *****
139. Two crew deck-guns
140. How to handle human escort players "spotting" u-boats/periscopes?
141. Boat specific and variable presence objects.
142. Battery-heating after full charge?
143. Refuelling the "daily tank".
144. Variable visibility over time
145. Damage to gauges. (further thoughts on #98) ***
Page 13.
146. Loose and suspended objects.
147. Optional faster zig-rate.
148. DF-ing using civilian radio-stations/DFing u-boats
149. Refinement of AI escorts in determining likely position of an attacking u-boat from torpedo wakes.
150. Fixing damage - personal expertise
151. Beards!!! ***
152. "Pencil" or ability to point finger at instruments/controls. ***
153. Adding some realism to the re-charging process, and to replicate, to a point, the actual methods employed
154. Double-ranked escorts.
Page 14.
155. 3 axis movement and wave/swell action.
156. Audible pings not necessarily being detections.
157. Lobby setting whereby sensors/optics/hatches can be rendered inoperable for a period of time, and/or, until certain actions/data entry are performed.
158. UI improvement in "bunker".
159. Manoeuvring through minefields.
160. Thought on manual reloading of torpedoes
161. Use of "spare players" as ballast.
162. Anachronism correction: ("Dymo" placards)
163. Does the Hun play "darts"?
164. Reworking of rudder-authority/engine or e-motor asymmetry?
165. Opening/closing submarine nets - entering anchorages.
166. Improvement to later war hedgehog.
167. Post game reveal of each course adopted by convoy, and speed, sequentially, between alerts.
168. Itemised date-sensitive u-boat and escort additions.
169. Changes and additions to log-book entries (see also #70, #77, #85)
Page 15.
170. 2nd headset in hydrophone station.
171. Leaking hatches.
172. Game "remembers and applies previously used filter settings for lobbies"
173. Moon-paths affecting detection ranges.
174. "Better deaths"
175. 12 (internal stowage) +2 torpedoes (external stowage)
176. Inconstant draft as a difficulty setting.
177. Loadout preferences kept game to game (and lobby set-ups generally)
178. Alarm bells audible through speakers in engine room and e-motor room voice tubes?
179. Thoughts on radar.
180. Non-digital detection ranges and alerts
181. Exponential voice attenuation with number of intervening closed hatches/doors to sound source, and ability to turn off the hydrophone operators voice tube (receive).
Page 16
182. Additional atmospheric sounds that convey information
183. Survivors - victory conditions?
184. Conditional instability in depth-keeping.
185. "Intermediate" leak rates.
186. Attack of the Kraken!
187. Ability to suppress "Mission Complete" screen.
188. Ship names either side bow and at stern.
1. The boat seems rather sparsely crewed currently: Sleeping/resting crew in every bunk in both sleeping areas. Such resting crew should be able to be put in respirators (for later chlorine escape from batteries). The very occasional cough, gentle snore, animated and very very rare butt-scratch and low inaudible conversation in German sound effects whose aim is to create the impression of a larger crew being aboard. Some crew could be reading/writing animations? Periodic meals being prepared, Animated cook with usual kitchen noises, except at action-stations, followed by crew eating at tables in messes, likewise when not at action stations.
2. Options for player to adopt different mouse-cursors of differing sizes and visibility in game. I personally find it VERY difficult to find my cursor against some colour backgrounds/light levels. Ability to cycle through them on the fly would be useful? IMPLEMENTED
3. Visible animated raising of flooring in forward torpedo compartment with animated raising of torpedoes from underfloor storage via chain or rope hoists with suitable sound effects internally, and noise generated a risk of detection. Possible slower quieter reload possible?
4. Access to battery compartments via crawlspace, with bilge-water level modelled, as a preparation for broken battery cells and chlorine generation/suppression via blowing the bilge, ventilating the boat, and straps across broken batteries to maintain voltages etc as part of a later damage-model. If chlorine present, requires use of respirator to access, making communication impossible.
5. Ability of player operated crew to crawl and/or move on bended knee, in order that the compressor may be reached with the aft torpedo reload being modelled as an obstacle, and also allowing for operating in crawl-spaces such the two battery compartments.
6. Greater trim-changes required when torpedoes are fired, and addition of operable fore-aft trim tanks to balance the boat longitudinally. Consideration given to animated movement of crew towards Torpedo compartment during crash dives or at bottom of descent requiring fore-aft trim to be re-optimised.
7. And of course ...... playable escorts!
Feel free to add, amend, laugh until you cry, deride or otherwise make you own suggestions.... <dons tin-hat>
[LATER EDIT] Strike #2, it already exists - I just hadn't found it!
8. Fore-aft longitudinal balance trim tanks. These were used not to balance the boat the boat to neutral bouyancy, but to trim the boat so the bow and stern had the same relative bouyancy, preventing the boat from adopting a bow low or high aspect in relation to the stern. Although these were small tanks, their correct configuration was vital to the handling and depth keeping of the boat, especially when speed was developed, as a loss of such balance could easily cause a boat to lose control in pitch and either accidentally broach the surface, or unintentionally dive to greater depths than intended. (This change of pitch trim at speed because drag varies with the square of the speed, and the conning tower provided drag above the C of G of the boat, meaning, that acceleration to a higher speed causes the boat to pitch-up, requiring a persistent plane input, or, longitudinal trim change)
Various factors affected the need to trim, such as the movement of personnel between compartments (Indeed as we know such movement of bodies was used deliberately to aid in sudden dives), but also firing of torpedoes or leakage of water in the bilges, which of course migrates to the lowest possible point, thus making the control of pitch attitude with the Hydroplanes more and more unstable as water is taken on.
People might, with some justification, prefer not to have this modelled, so I suggest it's a lobby configurable feature, but it should provide Dive officers with a much more difficult and rewarding task, which crucially would need continuous attention paid rather than the short bursts of activity which is normally a Dive Officer's game experience?
On a related note, it used to be the case that firing a torpedo also had a fairly major effect on the regular trim of the boat, and that unless the DO was on the ball, and added water to the trim tank as each torpedo was fired, he'd rapidly find himself, and the boat both, rising in the water column. It's a shame this feature was seemingly dialled-back. With an implementation of longitudinal balance-trim, it'd become even more interesting.
If one reads accounts of WW2 Submarine battles, one of the main dangers were crews losing control of their boats, either rising involuntarily to the surface, or diving to dangerous depths, because these craft were relatively unstable. Salinity changes, a DC changing the water pressure above or below one end of the boat, loss of control of trim - all these could precipitate such a loss of control. I think we need to put it back again, at least as a selectable difficulty for individual players?
Bilge_Rat
05-15-23, 06:24 AM
Hi, the number and type of tanks in a Type VII and what should be modelled was extensively discussed at the very beginning.
for example, see here:
https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=227325
However, since the game was originally designed to be played by 1-5 players, as opposed to a crew of 40+, the decision was made to simplify things a bit.
My take on it is that the duties of a Dive Officer are pretty short-lived. Once the boat is at depth, be it periscope or at 180m, there's very little to do, as the boat may be readily kept at either depth with only minimal input by the DO. In other words, there's not much to do. The knock-on effect from this is that the boat is not behaving in the vertically unstable fashion it should be when either being disturbed by DC's above or below, by poor trim or changes in salinity.
Having the ability to set the difficulty for the DO by it being possible to configure the game to make fore-aft balance tanks operable and relevant, and by making the boat more dynamically-unstable (when affected by an external force) seems to me a better solution than simply lowering the overall difficulty by simplifying it....
Apart from any other consideration, the anxiety caused to all players, by an event causing an out of control descent towards crush-depth, or to an involuntary surfacing, is ultimately what keeps the game replayable, and therefore adds to the overall number of players in game. The simplified diving can be used to teach newer DO's the basics of the trade, with the configurable extra difficulty in depth keeping, maintaining PD etc being added later. Perhaps on a per-boat, rather than per-lobby basis.
9. Wristwatch view with operable bezel for use as countdown or count-up to a particular time, synchronised to u-boat clock.
This would be useful to establishing and keeping to TOI/TIW times from the Periscope position (or any other) when more than one boat are cooperating.
10. Convoy stragglers and AI change:
In order to provide some variability to gameplay, I propose that ships which are hit, but not sunk, operate at a reduced speed. If a ship above a certain tonnage, or, more than one ship so afflicted, an escort (Bittern or Flower Class?) remains with them for a period sufficient to effect repairs. I suggest such repairs be circa 30 minutes. After repairs, it may achieve normal convoy speed. If more than one escort is detached, the rear-most one is automatically sent back to the convoy without delay. Torpedo or Main Gun hits on a ship that is trailing the convoy has no effect as reqards zig-zagging on the convoy.
11. Selectable German or English dials/labels/signage
One of the immersion killers for me is seeing English language dials. No doubt this has been discussed before. But, what if one could configure "German language" or "English Language" ones - plus others as required?- so that each player looking at the same dial would see what they had selected, AND had a mouse-hover tool-tip in the OTHER language.
So, a native German would likely choose "German language dials", but if he mouse-hovers over, it indicates the setting - say "Slow ahead" in English. This would then allow him to call for a setting in German, but also see the English language translation. If he's playing with an all German crew, he'd obviously use German, but if alone on the boat playing with a bunch of Americans, he can then see at a glance what the English command is for the same setting.
The mouse-hover itself would be configurable off/on.
This would allow everyone to see dial presentations as they prefer, whilst also allowing the German players to learn the English words, and vice versa....
12. Interval between ASDIC acquisition if DC's are dropped.
I can't provide any evidence for this, and I'm no expert, but from what I've read early decoys operated by making clouds of bubbles when they reacted with sea-water, with this design arising because it was already clear to both sides that ASDIC produced very muddled return signals, or failed to work at all, if the water-column above the boat was aerated by the DC explosion. This is useful, as this feature could be used to help make DC attacks more prolonged but less lethal, especially in shallower-water.
13. Salinity. I'd be interested to know if U-boats possessed salinity gauges? If so, changing salinity values can add some much needed workload to the Dive Officer. This could be added even if no gauges were fitted, as just something to increase DO workload.
14. Thermal layers. These bands of water at different temperatures can cause ASDIC to be reduced in effectiveness. Certainly US submarines of the period had gauges for outside water temperature.
15. "Soaping" depth charges.
I forget the range bands of standard British (Or US) depth-charges were, but at least early in the war, they could not reach the depths U-boats could get down to. Standard practice when a U-boat sank to beyond the nominal depth setting was to stuff the hole through which water pressure (and therefore depth) was admitted with normal soap. This dissolved as it sank, allowing the DC to explode lower than would otherwise be the case. If this were featured, and the depth attained by any DC be a random amount beyond the nominal set-value, then it would allow an escort to remain something of a threat and suppress the u-boat even if he can't officially reach the correct depth. At some point, probably circa 1942, the Royal Navy DC's were given deeper possible settings to clobber those "hard to reach" u-boats! I also suggest that manned ASDIC's on escorts be allowed, if no thermal layer intervening, to successfully ping off a u-boat at 185m or more.
Bilge_Rat
05-23-23, 05:46 AM
11. Selectable German or English dials/labels/signage
yes, this has been raised and discussed before. Would be nice to have and hopefully we will eventually get it. However, I do not not view it as an "immersion killer", more of a "minor annoyance". Once you are in the game, you quickly forget about it.
Bilge_Rat
05-23-23, 05:55 AM
12. Interval between ASDIC acquisition if DC's are dropped.
I can't provide any evidence for this, and I'm no expert, but from what I've read early decoys operated by making clouds of bubbles when they reacted with sea-water, with this design arising because it was already clear to both sides that ASDIC produced very muddled return signals, or failed to work at all, if the water-column above the boat was aerated by the DC explosion. This is useful, as this feature could be used to help make DC attacks more prolonged but less lethal, especially in shallower-water.
Actually, British Sonar was very effective from the very beginning. There were 4 encounters between U-Boats and DDs in September 1939. All 4 U-Boats were found and held on Sonar, were depth charged and damaged and 2 were sunk.
Current behaviour seems about right in game. Ship/U-Boat damage review is already on the roadmap, so no doubt this will be tweaked further.
Bilge_Rat
05-23-23, 06:03 AM
15. "Soaping" depth charges.
I forget the range bands of standard British (Or US) depth-charges were, but at least early in the war, they could not reach the depths U-boats could get down to. Standard practice when a U-boat sank to beyond the nominal depth setting was to stuff the hole through which water pressure (and therefore depth) was admitted with normal soap. This dissolved as it sank, allowing the DC to explode lower than would otherwise be the case. If this were featured, and the depth attained by any DC be a random amount beyond the nominal set-value, then it would allow an escort to remain something of a threat and suppress the u-boat even if he can't officially reach the correct depth. At some point, probably circa 1942, the Royal Navy DC's were given deeper possible settings to clobber those "hard to reach" u-boats! I also suggest that manned ASDIC's on escorts be allowed, if no thermal layer intervening, to successfully ping off a u-boat at 185m or more.
The standard RN DC in September 1939 could reach 500 feet. Yes, technically a U-Boat could have gone underneath, but in the early days, U-Boat commanders rarely took their boat as deep as they could go since no one knew how deep they could really go. By the time it became standard practice to go "deep", the RN had DCs that could reach them.
The issue in any subsim is whether you want to put the player in a similar situation to skippers at the time or whether you should be able to use hindsight to avoid enemy weapons, always a tricky balancing act.
Again revisiting U-Boat damage is already on the roadmap so we will see what comes out of it.
16 Please add a soft "squeak" sound-effect to wheels such as the the negative ballast wheels, and trim wheels, as feedback that the wheel is indeed fully closed? Wheels that supply air of course can be exempted, as the "hiss" fulfils a similar role.
EDIT: On reflection, I think the problem is the way in which our "taps" (faucets?) operate. On your kitchen tap, when you turn it on, there's initial rotation of the tap, THEN water flows, and conversely, when you close the tap, the water ceases THEN the mechanical stop for further closing of the valve is reached. This prevents a slow leaking of the water because the tap is left slightly open, and allows a positive shut-off of water flow when the tap is in the off position. This should be how our air and flooding valves operate, meaning that in the case of the air-valve, there's no flow of air until a litter after initial movement of the valve, and conversely there's a positive cessation of air-flow even if the valve is left fractionally open when closing it?
The standard RN DC in September 1939 could reach 500 feet. Yes, technically a U-Boat could have gone underneath, but in the early days, U-Boat commanders rarely took their boat as deep as they could go since no one knew how deep they could really go. By the time it became standard practice to go "deep", the RN had DCs that could reach them.
The issue in any subsim is whether you want to put the player in a similar situation to skippers at the time or whether you should be able to use hindsight to avoid enemy weapons, always a tricky balancing act.
Again revisiting U-Boat damage is already on the roadmap so we will see what comes out of it.
That's the benefit of "soaping" charges, no-one at all knows exactly how far they'll delay before exploding, other than it's deeper than the nominal maximum. It means u-boat commanders can no longer "know" for certain that they're beyond the effective range of DC's. In any case, I suspect that the current undetectable range of u-boats to asdic is actually defined by the excessive period between losing the asdic signal, and the dc's reaching that depth. Anything that varies the predictive abilities of "the escort can't see as we're 2501m away from it" or "they can't hit us because we're 5m deeper than they can hear us on hydrophones" HAS to make for a better game. The problem of "predictable sensor/weapon ranges" is also a disagreeable side-effect of the AI rather then Human operated escorts. A human operator can pretend not to have seen the u-boat or turn in an unexpected fashion, greatly reducing the u-boats "computation" that he's safe from detection at a given range, or even that he's been detected at all....
17. Now this is a bit of a "silly" one that arose out a discussion today whilst skulking about at 185m:
What if when use entered ".afk" the text buffer, you avatar was moved to lie in one of the bunks, and a message sent to all players on the boat. ".back" would reverse it to standing by the bunk. This would help players keep track of who is afk at any instant.
The sillier idea was to implement the "lavatory in use" lights (with suitable drawigns) from "das Boot" so that to go afk you went to the lavatory and close the door. In the control room, or outside the lavatory, someone's afk status would be indicated by said movement into the lavatory?
Like I said, a bit silly, but also an opportunity for levity and a way to help other players keep track of who is afk?
18. Captains microphone in the control-tower.
With voice attenuation "On", one of the problematical areas for hearing is at the helm and dive station when the captain is at the AP. It's often hard to hear him, despite this being the most critical to and from lines of communication between the two. I've not seen such a thing, but it's a fair-bet that on the real boats, the officer supervising the helm and planes/tanks and trims would have been at the base of the ladder, repeating orders. We already do this up to a point, but it uses-up a player. It's reasonable to suppose that there might have been a microphone at the PD position, which could out-put, one way, to the speaker on the wall above the helm?
This improvement, although it may be fictional, might help encourage players to use the in-game voice, rather than using discord. A spare player may still relay the confirmations from the helm and dive officer; from the position at the bottom of the ladder?
It would basically function as a one way voice-tube? IMPLEMENTED (as voice tubes to hydrophone and radio-room from conning tower)
Actually, British Sonar was very effective from the very beginning. There were 4 encounters between U-Boats and DDs in September 1939. All 4 U-Boats were found and held on Sonar, were depth charged and damaged and 2 were sunk.
Current behaviour seems about right in game. Ship/U-Boat damage review is already on the roadmap, so no doubt this will be tweaked further.
Based on memoires of surviving submariners from WW2, DC's seem to be very much too effective, with a very brief period in which the escort persists with hunting and attacks. Boats often reported 50-100 DC's being expended on a single u-boat plus 2-4 barrages with Hedge-hogs. The effect of DC's was fairly often a loss of depth control, as even-though the misses were far enough away to only cause minor damage, the effects on the u-boat's bouyancy at any given instant could be profound, especially with charges that exploded above or below the u-boats depth. This "dynamic-instabilty", ie instability caused by movement of the boat, magnifying tbe effect of any brief changes to the water-pressure or aeration of the water-column above the boat, could result in either the boat passing or approaching crush-depth or accidentally broaching the surface.
So, IMHO, DC attacks (as opposed to pinging, should be far more numerous but far less effective. This would also allow for progressive damage to be fixed by the crew when more detailed damage models follow.
Self evidently, we cannot have escorts prosecuting attacks for hours, so there's a balance to be struck. Personally I think DC attacks should last for 30-40 minutes.
Hi, the number and type of tanks in a Type VII and what should be modelled was extensively discussed at the very beginning.
for example, see here:
https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=227325
However, since the game was originally designed to be played by 1-5 players, as opposed to a crew of 40+, the decision was made to simplify things a bit.
There's no reason why some jobs cannot be made more complex, provided not all that workload comes at once. For example, a Dive Officer will not be moving longitudinal ballast from fore to aft if the negative ballast needs blowing, or the main trim tank need adjusting. It's likely he'll have a hierarchy of tasks to get the boat (say) to periscope depth in a level attitude, likely having got the boat to a perfect level attitude with longitudinal trim before he nears the surface.
After firing forward torpedoes, he'll likely make immediate changes to the main trim tank and the longitudinal trim tanks, because all of the weight leaving one end of the boat. Were longitudinal trim modelled, with the distribution of crew, then having non-essential crew run to the torpedo room could help develop the bow-low attitude and the L'-trim used for the same purpose.... lots to like in there?
Bilge_Rat
06-02-23, 06:19 AM
Based on memoires of surviving submariners from WW2, DC's seem to be very much too effective, with a very brief period in which the escort persists with hunting and attacks. Boats often reported 50-100 DC's being expended on a single u-boat plus 2-4 barrages with Hedge-hogs. The effect of DC's was fairly often a loss of depth control, as even-though the misses were far enough away to only cause minor damage, the effects on the u-boat's bouyancy at any given instant could be profound, especially with charges that exploded above or below the u-boats depth. This "dynamic-instabilty", ie instability caused by movement of the boat, magnifying tbe effect of any brief changes to the water-pressure or aeration of the water-column above the boat, could result in either the boat passing or approaching crush-depth or accidentally broaching the surface.
So, IMHO, DC attacks (as opposed to pinging, should be far more numerous but far less effective. This would also allow for progressive damage to be fixed by the crew when more detailed damage models follow.
Self evidently, we cannot have escorts prosecuting attacks for hours, so there's a balance to be struck. Personally I think DC attacks should last for 30-40 minutes.
well that is an oversimplification, the reality was a lot more complex.
for example:
1. sept. 14, 1939: 2 DDs working as a team find and attack U-30. Sonar conditions were good. Attacks were delivered over 6 hours. U-30 received extensive damage, 2 torpedo tubes, engine room valve, 1 diesel engine out and the other heavily damaged, flooding took the boat down to 472 feet. U-30 escaped;
2. sept. 14, 1939: 3 DDs working as a team find and attack U-39. Sonar conditions were good. 12 depth charges were dropped in 3 attacks at depths of 100 to 500 feet. Batteries were damaged, lighting was knocked out, valves were cracked, chlorine gas was released when sea water entered the batteries, electric motor was knocked out, U-39 surfaced and scuttled. Attack lasted 20 minutes;
3. sept. 17, 1939: 2 DDs attack U-29 over 4 hours expending all their DCs. U-29 was damaged, but escaped;
4. sept. 20, 1939: 4 DDs hunt U-27 over a period of 2 hours at night losing and regaining contact several times. U-27 goes "deep" to 393 feet and orders silent running. 5 attacks are done dropping 25? DCs at depths of 100 to 250 feet. U-27 suffers extensive damage over the course of these attacks: bent propeller shaft, "series flooding". After 2 hours, U-27 tries to escape on the surface, but is caught and scuttles;
5. oct. 13, 1939: 2 DDs hunt U-42. U-42 goes to 361 feet. The 1st DC attack ruptures the aft ballast tank, the U-boat starts sinking backwards at a 45 degree angle. Crew is obliged to surface and scuttle;
6. oct. 14, 1939: 4 DDs hunt and attack U-45 which is sunk with no survivors;
7. nov. 29, 1939: 3 DDs hunt U-35. U-35 goes "deep" to 229 feet. 3 DC attacks are carried out with DCs at 250 feet. U-35 diving planes are jammed, aft ballast tanks and fuel line are ruptured, Boat is at a steep up angle and unable to regain control. U-35 surfaces and scuttles;
8. nov. 12?, 1939: 2 DDs attack U-49 delivering a "punishing depth-charge attack". The boat is driven down to 557 feet, periscope and all 4 forward torpedo tubes suffer unrepairable damage, but U-49 escapes. Note that this occur in weather which was "hideous",i.e. a storm;
9 and 10. nov ?, 1939: DDs (number unknown), escorts of convoy Sierra Leone 7 attack U-41 and U-43. U-41 is held down for 20 hours, but escapes with light damage. U-43 is "severely damaged", but also escapes;
11. dec. ?, 1939: DDs (number unknown) attack U-47, but attack is "desultory" and U-47 escapes undamaged;
so first 11 attacks of the war, 5 U-boats sunk, 3 heavily damaged, 2 w. light damage and only one undamaged.
well that is an oversimplification, the reality was a lot more complex. [SNIP]
That's a lot more detailed, but it's broadly in agreement with what I stated, namely that DC attacks went on for much longer than is typical in game, and often cause involuntary surfacing, either because of non-lethal cumulative damage, or because of loss of depth control due same.
Bilge_Rat
06-02-23, 09:59 AM
That's a lot more detailed, but it's broadly in agreement with what I stated, namely that DC attacks went on for much longer than is typical in game, and often cause involuntary surfacing, either because of non-lethal cumulative damage, or because of loss of depth control due same.
Hi, note there was no involuntary surfacing, in the 3 examples above, the skipper ordered the boat to surface.
Again, based on the data, most DC attacks were dangerous, in the 11 examples I cited above 8 U-Boats were sunk or heavily damaged.
Another way to look at this is U-47 under Prien was depth charged 4 times in 39-41 and was sunk the 4th time. The U-99 under Kretschmer and U-100 under Schepke were each depth charged 3 times and sunk the 3rd time. U-567 under Endrass was sunk the 1st time it was depth charged. These were all U-Boat aces who knew how to handle their boats.
The reality is that escorts with well trained crews and working as a team generally had no problem holding a sub on sonar under good sound conditions and could generally inflict serious damage to the sub. When you see an attack stretching out for hours, it is usually because the escort is having trouble finding the U-boat because of poor sound conditions, poorly trained crews, escorts working alone, etc which would have been the case during the "Happy Times" in last six months of 1940.
When you look at the careers of most successful U-Boat aces, you see they managed to survive a long time by sinking unescorted ships and staying well away from the escorts when they attacked convoys.
Now in game, yes, there should be a good chance that an escort can heavily damage/sink the boat if it finds you and attacks you. That is realistic and makes the game more interesting. Note that current behaviour is still early access since revisiting U-boat damage is on the development roadmap.
Hi, note there was no involuntary surfacing, in the 3 examples above, the skipper ordered the boat to surface.
If the boat has suffered damage where the boat has to surface, then whether the captain orders the precise moment or manner of it's doing so is besides the point. That is an involuntary surfacing. The same applies to one forced to surface for want of oxygen, one with chlorine spreading from the battery compartments and so forth. As RN destroyers (and aircraft) attacked until a particular u-boat was demonstrably sunk, or it's ammunition was expended, this was not uncommon.
My general point here is that a contact was not captured once, depth-charged once and then assumed to be sunk with the escort then returning to the convoy; which is what currently happens in game. If a u-boat did go down to 185m, it would become very difficult to hit, because of the interval in time between the asdic contact being lost, and the escort firing the charges, and for those charges reaching the u-boats depth, if indeed they were fused as far down as that depth. On the other hand, even a near miss at that depth would potentially much more damage as a much shallower DC.
20. Reworking of attenuation. I think attenuation within a metal-hulled u-boat is overdone currently. It should be like farting in church - loud and heard over considerable distance, given the acoustics of such an environment. I really like the the idea of attenuation, but for example, it's over done in the case of say the conning tower to the control room where intervening hatches are open. Naturally if doors or hatches are closed, then that's a completely different situation. So I think that voices should carry well to the adjacent compartment unless if no intervening hatch is open, likewise louder sounds: the e-motor, torpedo reloading winches (one day) the diesels should be heard more or less throughout the boat, if all the hatches/doors are open.
EDIT: To clarify, what I meant here is that the attenuation (reduction of volume with distance/intervening bulkheads etc) is basically fine, but the reverberation is massively overdone.
21. Huff-Duff (High Frequency DF)
Whenever the radio is used, there should be a % risk per character sent, of escorts getting a bearing of the transmitting u-boat. After a short interval, (where the escorts would share the frequency being used by the u-boat and it's approximate DF bearing) any further transmissions would have a higher % per character of being detected. If a second DF bearing is gained by the escorts, a tribal or Bittern is sent at full-speed to that fixed position, and there executes an asdic search, and opens fire if the u-boat is on the surface. If the escort makes no contact at the DF'd position, it returns at full-speed to the convoy. Not more than two escorts at a time would be detached.
Not sure when "Huff-Duff" was implemented? I hope eventually that the game will model the technical progress for both u-boats and escorts, and the counter-measures of each....
22. Crouching/kneeling/Sitting position?
In the aft torpedo room there's provision for a torpedo to be in the ready to load cradle, however it's not present, unlike the single torpedo in the forward torpedo room. The reason for this is, I believe, because the (standing) chief would not be squeeze between it and the e-motor controls either side?
It would be nice, if eventually the lifting cradles operated to retrieve under-floor and their associated lateral worm-gear to bring them to a ready to load condition for a particular tube. It's forseeable that one day there might be a playable torpedo operator in the torpedo rooms, operating the loading kit, setting gyro angles, and firing torpedo's according to whatever signalling system the Germans used. In order to be able to do that, some means of "wriggling around obstacles" or alternate viewing angles from poses (seated/crouched etc) maybe required to allow torpedo settings and e motor controls and dials to be seen whilst "ready to load torpedoes" are hanging on the cradle, in any of the positions for forward or aft tubes?
Other possibilties are for the sonar/radioman, and chief to adopt sitting positions in chairs or platforms where these exist.
23. Rework of crush-depth, incremental damage/flooding from deep operation and session randomisation.
One of the weaker areas of this game, if I may be permitted to suggest it, is the reliability with which all manner of dangerous manoeuvres or assumptions may be made, because "values are known". Examples of this are visual ranges, where escorts may safely be regarded as unable to see you, crush depth, ability to drop to 185m and be unlocatable by enemy hydrophones and so forth.
I think the game needs more randomisation, within a wider set of values, so that these assumptions about how deep the u-boat may safely dive, where you can and cannot be seen, and the AI of DCing are made more "fluffy" as values.
For example, if "the ability for the AI to see" xyz was semi-random to a degree, then it'd no longer be possible to rely absolutely that an escort has not seen you because you're at such and such a range.
Similarly, to my mind, I'd like to see semi-random small leak events occurring in the boat as the boat gets below the semi-random crush-depth of that u-boat on that play-session. Meaning that it'd no longer be possible to dive the boat to 10m above the known crush-depth with no complicating issues of leaks, and without the certainty of the crush depth.....
Taking out these predictable behaviours and predictable sight ranges, crush depths, noise acquisition ranges etc will I think improve the game in the long term. Currently, as things stand, once you've mastered roles, and have learned "the values" of the things I cite above, it really removes any scope for further interest in the game. Which need not be the case....
Adriatico
06-22-23, 03:52 PM
Is the single player going to be somewhat simplified in u-boat management... with some less entertaining activities&procedures to set to simplified or automatic ?
(20% closer towards Silent hunter 3/4/5 gameplay)
:k_confused:
I am fanatic of Submarine single player sims (veteran player) but I guess that 60% of market is horrified by the obligation to gather a team of players each time they want to play and enjoy the adventure.
(Family people, working people, elderly fans, non English speaking players...) could simply avoid the game - that would force them to torture themselves with gathering a team.
If I understand you correctly, it already is via the "bots" system. With the new "engine patch", the really critical thing will be to make the rate at which the bots can change engine configurations SLOWER than those achievable by a player working the controls. The problem being, that if bots are more effecient, then few will use - or want to see used - the new chief role, as the bot can do it quicker. This would render all that work - and testing - essentially worthless, just as the advent of "simplified radio" rendered actual enigma use and morse-code unusable, because there's almost never a critical mass of trained radio operators, and captains prefer the faster communication simple radio confers.
Adriatico
06-24-23, 05:48 PM
Well, it's up to the predictions - is it going to be a sure "blockbuster" in submarine warfare closer to Silent Hunter... or aimed to fistful sub/crew management fanatics...
I bet that my generation of Grey wolfs veterans will not have a patience to feed, entertain, train, heal,...the crew >or to check out engine room - valve by valve...
The smartest approach would be to offer simplified, medium and realistic options - with a customize each detail option.
This way you would grab 99% of sub-simulation fans market.
People who work or learn, care about real kids and elderly parents > certainly will not have inspiration to care about "crew members".
:doh:
Aktungbby
06-24-23, 08:22 PM
Adriatico!:Kaleun_Salute: after an 8 year 'silent run'!:up:
Well, it's up to the predictions - is it going to be a sure "blockbuster" in submarine warfare closer to Silent Hunter... or aimed to fistful sub/crew management fanatics...
I bet that my generation of Grey wolfs veterans will not have a patience to feed, entertain, train, heal,...the crew >or to check out engine room - valve by valve...
The smartest approach would be to offer simplified, medium and realistic options - with a customize each detail option.
This way you would grab 99% of sub-simulation fans market.
People who work or learn, care about real kids and elderly parents > certainly will not have inspiration to care about "crew members".
:doh:
I think the new Chief role will give some much needed new skills to learn. provided the bots arn't quicker, it should work well. Of course there'll be 2 weeks of total chaos as we get out heads around it! So the game should cater well for both solo players, and also those who enjoy the challenges of a game with multiple crew manned by real players.
Adriatico
06-25-23, 12:38 PM
Adriatico!:Kaleun_Salute: after an 8 year 'silent run'!:up:
Thanks mate!
In fact, It was not a "radio silence" but I served in Luftwaffe, at high altitude combat sims (Cliffs of Dover, Battle of Stalingrad, B.o. Normandy...)
It is not a topic of the thread... :oops:
Just popped in to see what's new (are the Cpt.Lehmann and Jimbuna still lurking arround)
24. Packet-loss indicator for first 10 minutes of a game.
When playing an organised game with 4 full boats, it sometimes arises that the host of the lobby has a fast connection - but a poor packet-loss or high latency. It can take time to realise this, leading to a great deal of detective-work of odd game behaviour before we mutually agree to have someone else host the game. If we had a packet-loss indicator for the 1st 10 minutes - and perhaps a command we could use in the text-buffer in which packet loss for that user could be established, it might save a lot of faffing about.
25. Ability to toggle in-game voice mic and in game voice sound off and on, ideally independently. Either at the lobby host level, or at the player level. This would help make things simpler for those of us who prefer in-game voice for casual play but who are compelled to use Discrud for organised games. There's usually a bit of a palava remapping keys etc when changing session types. Toggling would make things easier?
26. Better star-shells. These were usually fired 4-5 at a time, and could illuminate a large area, reducing in area (but increasing illumination) as the flare fell. As things stand, star-shells have virtually no illumination and are fired as singles. The game "Destroyer" does the illumination fairly well.
27. Radio - medium complexity?
It might be nice to have a third setting that allows the radio man to type and automatically encrypt and automatically send morse ("as with simple") but still requires the radioman to manually decrypt the Enigma, with (if this is not the case) the keys illuminated rendering the plain-text automatically on the radio mans booklet, the radio log and the orders tab. The problem with securing enough radio operators is essentially that of mastering morse. It's great when it works, but if there are 4 good radio ops using "non simple radio", then if one logs during a game early - every boat has a problem.... So the ability to change between simple radio, medium radio and complex radio on the fly may be actually a better solution. Either way the medium complexity as outlined above might prove a happy compromise?
28. As an alternative to #27, might it be possible for radio complexity to be on a per boat setting, rather than a per lobby one? That way, if a boat lacks a morse and enigma-trained radio operator, the untrained chap can simply use simple-radio with his plain-text being automatically encrypted and sent, but incoming traffic can arrive as plain-text to him. This would allow those who wish to play on full-complexity to do so, and those that can't or don't, to send and possibly receive plain-text that appears to the other boats as cypher-text..... More to the point it would allow, in a large organised game, for boats not to be completely reliant on their radioman remaining in the game until the end. As things stand, if a radio operator logs/or otherwise loses connection, the remaining crew can communicate without necessarily having the morse/enigma skills required.
Hello everyone.
Don’t you think that the visibility through the periscope is TOO good? :hmmm:
There is no reason to go up to the bridge for observation when the submarine is on the surface.
I'm not sure that's a given. German wartime optics were extremely good, due their pre-war camera production with Zeiss, Voightlander and Leica, who were world-leaders in their day. The periscopes were good enough to take clear photographs through them....
Kralizec
07-23-23, 12:05 PM
http://www.uboataces.com/periscopes.shtml
It's impressive how many inaccuracies they managed to fit in such a tiny article. I don't think it's appropriate to use it as a reference.
Schnorkeling boats traveled at 5-6 knots with the attack scope fully extended - the engines make you deaf, you can't be blind as well. They were able to spot airplanes despite the supposed vibrations.
A good reason to not go fast at periscope depth in range of the enemy is that it makes you much more visible.
edit: AP was used on the Type VII boats, on Type IX they could use either AP or OP, so they used the OP
Aktungbby
07-23-23, 12:59 PM
Hello everyone.
Don’t you think that the visibility through the periscope is TOO good? :hmmm:
There is no reason to go up to the bridge for observation when the submarine is on the surface. O yes there is!:Kaleun_Salute: https://thumbs.gfycat.com/SmoothDeliciousDalmatian-max-1mb.gif https://i.makeagif.com/media/8-24-2015/SrIBX2.gif:arrgh!::Kaleun_Party: https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2611222&postcount=5
29. Post game replay of specific events from exterior view.
It would be useful as a training feature, as well as a cool feature generally, to be able to watch a replay of your torpedo hits (or misses within a certain distance?) the location and depth of DC's within a certain distance of your u-boat, and location of escorts actively pinging you boat on asdic. If these replays could be saved, and replayed, ideally as a file-type readily uploadable to youtube, then it would serve both as a training tool, as well as an "advertisement" for the game....
30. Observer position (aka compressor chap)
In order to shew new players the game at it's best, it would be helpful to have an extra crew position with very limited operable controls, so they can be aboard a multi-player boat in a multi-boat game, without being a liability, or without taking the place of an another more experienced player. A few tasks should be open to them - perhaps:
IMPLEMENTED (sort of)
running the compressor
viewing through periscopes raising/lowering same
steering but not using throttle
hydrophones
decrypting Enigma
using the echo-sounder
It would give them a good opportunity to see and hear a well crewed boat operating, as well as to feel part of the team by being given some simpler tasks to do, prior to being trained up properly in a role? As things stand, I think a lot of newer players are caught in the following situation:
Most lobbies are locked to them
They lack the knowledge to start a lobby of their own
And the complexities of the boat are tough to deal with as an ab-initio player
And they lack a circle of steam-"friends" able to bring them into locked lobbies or to help train them.
These issues in sum, I believe make this a somewhat inaccessible game. One thing that might help is to new players names presented at the lobby-selection screen, with some text-based means of asking them if they'd like to join a lobby. I do a bit of training of new players when I become aware of them, but as there's no means of being aware of them, nor means of communicating with them outside discord, it's not a new-player-friendly environment?
A simple text-based means of being able to see new players who are online, and the means to PM them, would be useful?
Conversely, there could be a "I need training" button for new players to operate which could pm every trainer online at that time. This might cause their name to change colour or similar so they may be readily identified and contacted.
31. Improved stop-watches, 1 "count-down" stop watch and (say) a couple of regular count-up ones. Consideration of a bevelled U-boat watch view, where the bezel can be set to a TOI, which used in conjunction with the count-down stop-watch (ideally with both simultaneously in view, can allow a known TTI (time to impact) being matched. Second hands on the clocks would also aid in this. I believe it's the case that stop watches were mounted, rather than held on the person usually? A view at the AP periscope not at the eyepiece with mounted count-down stopwatch and wrist-watch view in view, as there was in SH3 (?) might be useful. Ticking clocks and watches would be a nice touch when the sub is running at silent-running? IMPLEMENTED (addition of "second-hand" to clocks)
derstosstrupp
08-10-23, 10:30 AM
The stopwatches were hand held and encased in wood. These can be seen in Wolfpack above the chart table, the holders for them, and they have placed stopwatches themselves in them, although they can’t be removed.
I imagine the must have had count-down stop-watches? Ever come across one of those being used? The Germans had an a very strong clock and watch-making industry in the 30's and 40's - likewise cameras and other "high tech" such as reel to reel tape-recorders which were years ahead of most other countries.
32. Expandable menu for audio option sound effects and main sound menus.
I'm an old-fart now, and my hearing has been buggered for years, particularly at the frequencies of speech. Testing the upcoming patch, I've had major problems being able to hear the telephones in the diesel engine room over the engines, without suppressing the overall sound to the point where I can no longer hear other sound effects in other areas of the boat.
It would be really helpful therefore if the sound effects and main sound both could be opened into more detailed menus where individual sound-effects such as the diesels, voice tube whistles, speech on telephones or tubes, DC's, blowing tank sounds etc could all be individually set, so that players can optimise the sound for their compartment - just enough to make the difference between hearing a telephone ring over the engines and not, for example. Badly, badly, needed
Kralizec
08-15-23, 02:25 PM
32. Expandable menu for audio option sound effects and main sound menus.
This is a great one!
There was already someone who asked for the option to have the phone on the left side - the person who was deaf on the right ear just couldn't use it.
33. afk mechanism using lavatories
In order to go "Afk" one would enter one of the free lavatories, and close the door. The effect of this would be to illuminate the "bot-lamps" outside, and the appropriate one (or both if 2 people afk) of two either end of the control room. Mouse-hovering any "bot lamp" would indicate the name and position of anyone therein ie Bloggs, Dive Officer. Importantly the act of closing the door lifts any restrictions, enabling, for example anyone to start and stop the diesels for the duration the chief is afk. When exiting the lavatory a "flush" is heard, and the bot lamps go out, and restrictions are re-imposed.
This would allow who is afk when to be clear, as well as when they return, and would reduce the likelihood of someone going afk whilst still on their controls. Consideration could be given to a very low randomised chance of a very loud fart - full reverberation - occurring from a manned lavatory, as an opportunity for mirth and mickey-taking when the hapless occupant emerges!
34. Damageable internal equipment/effects from DC attacks.
I remain ever hopeful that at some point depth charge attacks will become much more protracted, with greatly reduced lethality, absent hedge-hog attacks. I'd like to see the following effects of DC near-misses:
Broken glass items, eg any gauge, be it electrical or pressure related, with physically larger gauges being the most vulnerable. Loss of Papenburg and/or tilt metre. Need to use standby gauges if they are undamaged, with even these standby gauges being possibly lost in prolonged DC attacks. Sounds of broken-glass underfoot. Possible intermediate "cracked" state for non-pressure instruments between working normal and unusably damaged?
Minor leaks, fixable by operating isolation valves.
Medium leaks, fixable by (machinist only??) tightening flanges/using blocks of wood, the latter creating noise of hammering. (need not be represented by avatars, could simply a sound effect?)
Major leaks, requiring surfacing to initiate repairs as a precondition. Bilge fills in meantime. May result in inability to rise to surface once all tanks, bilge and trims are blown, and air exhausted.
Leaks most severe when at depth, the deeper the worse the leak.
Fire in e-motor room or diesel room or in circuit breaker cupboards, or, in the radio room, or hydrophone room. (in order of likelihood). Fire may be extinguished by crew by picking up an extinguisher. Duration and severity of fire may reduce effectiveness of electric services, or, render them inoperable.
Cracked batteries resulting in lower battery current, and reduced overall charge held. As more and more cells are cracked, the bilge water becomes increasingly acidic. If bilge water rises to a certain point (3m3?) and battery damage has occurred, chlorine has starts to fill the submarine if ventilator hull-valves are closed. This produced coughing crew sound effects, and necessitates surfacing and ventilation before a lethal concentration is reached. Bridging cells may be undertaken and continued whenever bilge water is less than 1m3? Bridging cells is something the captain can order which will work, unless the bilge water exceeds 1m3, at which point he may longer do this, and surfacing is the only possibility. Ability for chief to obtain a reading of number of cells cracked and bilge acidity.
Loss of instrumentation lights, both for back-lit electrical instruments, and internally lit pressure instruments.
Loss of gyros for gyro compass. Captain has the ability to determine approx position and heading from stars or sextant use. (figural) IMPLEMENTED - sort of!
Crew wounding - broken arms/shoulders or head-wounds. Once dressed by another crewman, if arm broken, then controls operation is slower and more awkward. Head-wound reduce vision/hearing. Visible slings or bandages on wounded crew, so that players may wish to replace (say) a Helmsman or Dive officer who can longer easily control their station.
Damage to one of more tubes, rendering one/some unusable. Minor but persistent leaking of one or more tubes, (when flooded).
Damage to radio or hydrophone gear, deck and flak gun. Possible to repair when surfaced.
Damage to optics of Periscopes, but not UZO. Cracking of lens, or complete dislocation of a mirror or lens within. Not repairable (in less than 3 hours)
Creation of "mess" throughout the boat, clothes/blankets on the floor in front torpedo room, books or other personal items in two crew compartments, food, tins (rolling about?) kitchen utensils in kitchen; opened locker doors in any compartment with them. Broken tables where they exist.
Damaged main-ballast tanks, creating oil trail an escort may follow in daylight. inability to blow a given tank completely, requiring compensating blowing of negative or trim tanks.
Feel free to add your own!
35. Effects from depth-charging:
"Camera shake" from depth charges, the nearer the greater. Sounds of loose-objects crashing about afterwards, eg tins falling our of cupboards, glass breaking, involuntary cries from crew. Camera shakes direction being related to where the charge explodes, ie if above and right, the shake is perpendicular, so a diagonal shake if looking forward or aft. If above or below, a vertical one.
Toybasher
08-28-23, 12:06 PM
35. Effects from depth-charging:
"Camera shake" from depth charges, the nearer the greater. Sounds of loose-objects crashing about afterwards, eg tins falling our of cupboards, glass breaking, involuntary cries from crew. Camera shakes direction being related to where the charge explodes, ie if above and right, the shake is perpendicular, so a diagonal shake if looking forward or aft. If above or below, a vertical one.
I fully agree on this. There IS some camera shake already when depth charged but I feel it should be much more violent. As you said, have some loose physics objects that get knocked around, paintings flying off the wall, etc.
Maybe temporary "stunning" of the player character (can't move, camera sways heavily for a few seconds) to represent them getting knocked nearly off their feet but that could get frustrating to take control away from the player like that + I don't know how realistic it would be.
I imagine at the very least the rocking the sub has when surfaced could be repurposed to have depth charges feel like they're knocking the sub around.
36. Variable individual items of uniform
Currently, unless you get to know the same player playing the same role, it's hard to tell players apart visually without mouse-hovering their avatar to get their name.
It would be a cool feature if some alternate apparel existed such as a neckerchief, civilian shirts of different colours, a heavy jumper or differently shaded uniform trousers, glasses, beard-length etc. The ideal would be that each player can set their persistent appearance every game onwards.
An alternative to this would be to increase the variety of appearance via use of some more distinctive clothing, but to tie these set changes automatically by role, rather than by player preference. The latter being easier to code than the former in the paragraph above.
A further development of the clothing alternatives, is the use of wet-weather gear when on the bridge or casing if the wind-speed is above a given level. I suggest that lack of said gear could cause a shiver effect, so that a short period would be okay, but a longer one could make manipulating controls harder over time? To put on, or take-off wet-weather gear might be achieved by opening a locker in one of the two "messes"?
37. The need to reform the Radio compartment.
There are several issues/bugs affecting the radio compartment. The first of these is the effect of latency on morse-mutililation. The latter occurs when dots become dashes, or vice versa, or when pauses between letters are shortened or gaps between dots and dashes are lenghthened. This can make reading morse extremely difficult, even for those who know morse well, and should not be occurring over the short distances we transmit over. There is no actual need for morse signals to be sent and received at exactly the same time, a short pause between it being keyed, and it arriving at other boats could be staggered to allow for error-checking, to mean that the same code is sent and recieved.
The second set of problems in the radio-room concerns the note-book. When an encrypted signal is received, it should be automatically written into the "cypher-text" side of the note-book. Entering those code-groups into the Enigma should then result in the clear-text being written into the clear-text side of the note-book, alongside of the cypher-text on the other side. It should be possible then for the radio-operator to edit the clear-text, for example by context inserting numbers instead of letters, and to add spaces to render the cypher-text as clear language, rather than retaining the 4 letter groups. He should then have the ability to "publish clear-text" which would enter the text into the radio log. When sending a signal using "simple-radio", and the encrypted checkbox is ticked, then the signal received by other radio operators should be a cypher-text. They may have had VHF or HF radios for voice communications, but these should confer a greater risk of being DF'd by surface-craft. (DFing of long-wave transmissions, such as those between BDU and U-boats we easy to DF, but hard to DF with any accuracy). If no-encryption is used, then these massages should be available to the escorts when they are eventually playable. IMPLEMENTED - more or less.
The third problem currently, is the inability for players using real morse to communicate (as occurs on Duyfken games) to enter plain-text of morse transmissions into the radio-log. Again, I suggest there be an edit/publish mechanism so that corrections and clarifications can be made, the text adjusted before being sent to the radio-log. IMPLEMENTED or nearly so.
38. Ships slowed by damage
If a ship his hit by a torpedo and suffers adequate damage, it should gradually fall behind the convoy, whilst an escort is detached to search the area around for a time, before it heads back into the convoy. After which it'd be vulnerable to fire from a deck-gun. Thus enabling the deck-gun to serve a purpose in game.
39. 3rd party"water-spouts from DC attacks". It would be useful - and cool - to be able to observe the spouts of water as escorts prosecute attacks on other boats, such spouts being visible for a fair distance? There should be a marked difference in timing between seeing the water-spout, and hearing the detonation?
40. Concealable settings
It would be brilliant, I think, if a lobby host could conceal some settings from players, especially in multi-boat/multi-player games, so that there was more of a recce' phase to the game, especially with a distant convoy. Settings that could be with-held might be:
Asdic permanent on/off
Torpedo failure settings various
Size and composition of convoy
Whether or not convoy "zigs"
friendly-fire
Duration of escort search
Ones that affect personel distributed amongst the boats, such as those able to use complex radio, or use the Enigma, would NOT be concealed, nor would the year, the time of day or weather.
The advantage in this concealment is that Enigma signals could be used to direct uboats to the convoy, or to an intercept point, giving some further information previously concealed from crews, thus conferring some point to decrypting signals. It would also be good if there was a third convoy distance setting possible when making missions, that allowed spawning outside of hydrophone or visual range under any weather conditions, to help give content to navigators, who would take the Enigma clear-text, and then plot an intercept to bring the boat within hydrophone range.... This idea would therefore help give content to two rather under-used positions, namely radioman and navigator.
Lost At Sea
09-11-23, 01:18 AM
Some fantastic suggestions across these few pages :up:
Are the Devs aware of this particular thread ?
Cheers,
Lost
Many thanks, I just put them out there in the pious hope one of them will see them one morning over coffee. There's plenty of others with idea, many better than mine, but it does I think show how much further this game could be developed and improved. :Kaleun_Cheers:
41. Semi-autonomous offline U-boats
What if a there was a persistent real-time movement of convoy to and from British and allied ports, and an automated and/or manned BDU was able to order uboats to patrol squares. Captains would program the movement of their boats, with a count-down timer (possible messaging or emailing interested parties when the u-boat is within 40nm of a convoy). Players and skippers could then either log in at the required time of day to intercept the convoy, or if preferred, could delay their intercept until a more convenient time of day (RL) for players, or, the hours of darkness, or both.
A running battle would then develop between convoys and U-boats as they concentrate, with only the fun bit of the game requiring the attendance of players. For the bulk of the passages to and from u-boat bases, no player representation would be required, other than the route/speed being plotted by the captain.
A similar, but allied, routine could allow for Hunter-killer groups of escorts being attached to convoys, or escort carriers, with aircraft being used to preclude surface movement in daylight. This might mean that a convoy battle goes on for several RL days, with players concentrating on crewed boats at times where the u-boats are within striking range of the convoy, conferring a whole new tactical stratum to the game, sometimes presenting the u-boat captain with the need to attack in daylight, or poor weather, or with surface movement complicated by aircraft or hunter-killer groups. Much could be abstracted, as development permits, such as aircraft being with a convoy slowing the speed of u-boats in daylight, rather than being "in game". Likewise radar-equipped escorts could make life awkward for night-time surfaced progress.... with combat sometimes occurring away from the convoy....
This could also allow for much larger convoys being attacked by more than 4 boats, (although not more than 4 at a time for now), as perhaps a dozen or more u-boats could be sent towards a convoy or covering a patrol line, with players dropping into each of the 12 as each becomes within the 40nm range. Enigma signals from BDU could provide convoy position updates, with navigators plotting intercepts, which the captain then enacts to bring a given boat within range of the convoy at a (RL) time amenable to his crew players, and at a time of day where the u-boat is concealed by darkness....
Fuel usage could be factored in, so that captains are faced with decisions as to whether or not they can sustain x speed for y time to intercept a given convoy, or, if such a persuit might miss the convoy and cause the u-boat to return from patrol without firing....
42. Differentiation between boats.
It might be "nice" if there was a few persistent visual changes between different boats, in terms of stowage of food, tins thereof, and random object placements, such as a game of "scat" on the table rather than a chess-set, or an uncleared meal etc. The object being that when you're crewing a particular boat, it looks a little different if you crew another, to help create the sense of "u96" rather than "identical boat #1" as it were.... Different records, pictures, personal-items etc
43. Minefields. These should come in several forms:
1. Mines at depth 40m to near sea-bed, anchored to sea-bed, over which shipping may safely pass.
2. Mines at 40m or less, anchored to sea-bed
3. Mines at surface to 20m anchored to sea bed.
Maximum depth (anchor depth) in which mines are sown being 160m(?).
Class 3 minefields are known, and visible on map (as an area) on map. Classes 2 and 3 are settable in workshop mission and are not visible on map. If shallow enough mines and cable may be viewed underwater by OP/AP, or OP/OP/UZO/Binos/naked eye if surfaced, and the mine is at the surface.
Progress through minefield characterised by occasional graunching sound of cables running along hull, possibly drawing a mine down onto the hull if snagged on obstruction on u-boat. Alternating astern and forward on e-motor may allow release of same. A mine detonating results in "destroyed by mine" on end-screen. Mines on surface move up and down with wave action. Very occasional free-floating mines may exist in minefield of any type.
As mine-fields require a sea-bed depth of 160m(?) or less, they're predominantly employed in coastal-waters, and either dropped by minelayers or minelaying submarines, or by aircraft. They are often employed to deny an area to surface craft such as the straits of Dover and northwards toward Zeebrugge, or the northern and southern side of the western approaches, These latter two were further protected by class 1 and 2 types as an anti-uboat measure, and successfully sank a number of u-boats.
I see the value in such minefields being in (one day) workshop coastal missions, where single boats can operate in coastal waters around the UK and Ireland going after smaller convoys, often unescorted, or for missions such as getting into Scapa.
44. "Direction-finding"
Throughout the war, there was a multi-pronged attempt to locate both Uboats and RN ships through the use of directing-finding "or D-effing". Of the two sides, the allies had the advantage, as the geography of territory held (including Iceland) permitted better cross-bearings to be made of transmitting axis uboats and surface ships. However, at range, this of little use beyond that of "there are now thought to be 13 u-boats in your area" variety. This obscures the tactical advantages of shorter range D-effing, especially in the period before radar was common, and when done at ranges of 50nm or less, it allowed escorts to be detached to chase down a given bearing at speed, forcing the u-boat shadowing the convoy, even beyond visual range of the u-boat, forcing it down where it could neither communicate and might - with a little luck - also be sunk. Such attempts were much more successful when the Hunter-killer groups did so, as there was little scope for the u-boat being able to get away, and attacks were prosecuted until it was compelled to surface, or was sunk.
So how should this shorter-ranged "D-effing" work in terms of the game?
For U-boats, their ability to DF allied radio signals would give some indication of the bearing of a convoy, beyond that of hydrophones, and does so passively. It would allow for the position of a convoy to be established from a more imprecise BDU guestimate, allowing the u-boat to eventually establish hydrophone contacts later. This would allow for the game to allow a starting position for u-boats outside of hydrophone range, giving some much-needed content for navigators and radio-operators, who would need to decrypt BDU signals, move to the right area so directed, then D-eff, then plot an intercept course until one boat of the flotilla is in hydrophone and/or visual contact.
Conversely, allied shorter-range D-effing allows for the faster-moving escorts, fuel permitting, to be detached along a bearing to force a u-boat down, whilst perhaps summoning other assets to keep it down or kill it. The more frequent the German (or allied) radio-signals, and the longer, the more chance of a D-effing station (or ship/u-boat) being on the correct frequency to d-eff it in real time. Although both sides employed frequency schedules to complicate this for would be listers, and both sides used radio-silence as required, once the position of the convoy was known, this was of less and less utility.
In conclusion, for the Uboat d-effing a convoy gives some positional or directional information, and also some indication of it's escort size and composition. For the allies, it permits escorts to be employed more proactively (either at human direction) so that u-boats too often, or too long on the radio, are more likely to see a fast moving escort on the horizon heading more or less straight towards 'em.
Personally, I'd very much like to see this aspect of the electronic-war modelled, ideally with allied players managing assets within the convoy defence to not just react to boats within torpedo range of the convoy, but to keep them at bay, providing a more varied and difficult game experience for all concerned. Thought to be slated for development
45. Leigh-light equipped Wellingtons in the ASV role at night. Introduced in circa mid '42, these had a very bright searchlight in the retractable ventral turret of a Wellington, which could traverse, and hold the submarine in the gap between when radar-contact was lost - circa 1000m out - and when the attack could be prosecuted. The search-light was sufficiently dazzling to make return-fire in darkness difficult, and the losses of u-boats attacked so prohibitive, that Doenitz ordered u-boats to recharge in the day, when they could see aircraft, but to dive at night when they could not. These were active in the North Sea, the channel, and the Bay of Biscay in particular. Attacks were flown at 50 feet! A terrifying prospect for any pilot, even without the possibility of return fire. I believe the altitude was held using an early form of rad alt, and the pilots were limited from using any appreciable bank owing the very real risk of dropping a wing-tip into the drink. Many crews were lost in training sorties, and as many again on ops. It did however reduce the operational efficiency of the u-boats, sank 30 or so, and more importantly, put the rest at risk of attack from aircraft in daylight. In another effort to deal with the threat from night ASV wellingtons, and Sunderlands, considerable efforts were made by the Jerries to up-arm the AAA guns on u-boats, particularly in range with 3.7cm cannon, but also in volume of fire, with the quad 20mm cannon installations. In attempts to offset this, a forward-firing 40mm bofors gun was installed in a British B17, and although highly successful both in terms of damage done, and out-ranging the opponents weapons, this was not proceeded with. Later, German radar recievers were fitted to alert the crews to enemy radar, first Metox, and later Naxos (for different wave-lengths, as allied radar evolved).
How would this function in game terms?
In Biscay in particular, it would make surfacing at night, somewhat risky, although a measure of safety would exist when close to a convoy owing to the number of returns. A standing watch + AAA gunner on deck would be sensible, although this would in turn result in a slower dive. 2nd attacks were possible, and trained for, although commonly all DC's were dropped on the 1st pass if practicable. It was also common for these aircraft to operate in pairs, one to attack, and the other to report the position of the u-boat, and it's approximate heading, in case the attacking aircraft was destroyed. It would then also prosecute an attack if feasible. Metox or Naxos would give early warning, allowing a dive to occur.
46. Variable "known" distances, times and other AI behaviour
One of the more irritating aspects of this game is that there are a number of AI behaviours with well-known parameters, which a canny u-boat captain may exploit, utterly secure in the "knowledge" that if he keeps outside of these values, or below them, the AI will behave in certain completely predictable ways. To my mind these should be more "fuzzy", and the AI reactions they elicit, more varied. This applies to zigging, to range from escort when visually detected, to the depth and range of hydrophone and asdic detection, and to the precise timing of convoys resuming their course, and much else besides.
I would prefer it escorts might call over another to their side, and perhaps give no outward sign that they've detected a u-boat, and/or to make changes of course consistent with not having detected a u-boat, before at some point prosecuting an attack-run. Likewise a convoy changing speed and/or course by 2 kts or so, and 20 degrees or so, rather than simply putting all the lights on to telegraph to all concerned that a detection has occurred. In short, a less predictable AI behaviour combined with a more uncertain detection environment, and a less obvious - sometimes - AI reaction.
This could be a selectable degree of difficulty, and when played would mean that whilst you might KNOW the distance at which your boat WILL be detected visually, you won't be able to state with certainty that you boat is undetected merely because you're outside that "safe" range. Likewise, whilst you know if you're quiet, you cannot be detected on hydrophones, now there'd be no "safe-depth" at which you can KNOW you're undetected or immune to being detected on asdic and DC'd.
It's important, in my estimate, that the game have a series of difficulty levels, so that there's always room for players and captains to play at a more challenging level, as that helps retain players in the long-term.
AI behaviours that could then be developed are for more than one escort to attack a given contact, in turn leaving gaps in the convoy which other u-boats can exploit. A human player controlling the behaviour of the convoy, with timers controlling when changes to course can made, how many escorts are despatched to which contact would be a very worthwhile adjunct to this, as again, it'd make the overall AI response to events that much less predictable.
47. U-boat development.
I'd like to see the available "years" to play extended gradually towards 1945, with new torpedoes such as the "Lut" series, "zaukoenig" acoustic torpedoes, and an updated TDC for the former's use. Additionally, "Naxos" and "Metox" ASR warning, and "Albericht" counter sonar rubber covering, and heavier flak. Conversely, hedge-hogs and heavier DC salvoes, and radar for some escorts. I suggest that in order to be able to gain these later war u-boat upgrades, captains be required to survive a number of games in earlier years, and achieve a number of mission successes. Having gained them, if they choose to play a game set in an earlier year, then of course they only are able to use upgrades suitable for that year/month. In a similar fashion, weapons and sensors on escorts are likewise tied to the appropriate year/month.
The effect of this would be to extend the difficulty levels of the game, as well as compel changes in tactics used, to help retain players in the long-term, as there is room for the game to become more difficult, as well as some kudos for captains able to play the later years! Being killed in a post '41 game would lose you one upgrade, retrievable by a mission success in another?
48. "Convoy commander"
As a precursor to playable escorts, it'd be interesting to consider there being a single player who had some measure of control on the convoy, determining (within allowable limits) when, by how much, and how frequently, the convoy changes heading. Additionally, it'd be good if the convoy commander was able to detach an escort to prosecute asdic searches in a given location, and for how long it, (and any other boats directed to the same area) would prosecute searches and attacks. In all other respects, (for now) the escorts AI would be in effect, with the only changes being that they can be directed to an area on the map, and the duration of asdic searches and attacks. It might well be the case, that a destroyer is despatched to force a u-boat down, and then a Flower or Bittern is used for the attacks whilst the destroyer goes tearing back to the convoy...
This would start to introduce a PVP "battle of wits" between the u-boat players, and the enemy, with dispositions of escorts being more varied as escorts are used to hunt a particular u-boat; and conversely, that other uboats may then be able to exploit a thinned escort screen....
The "convoy commander" would be on the bridge of a Tribal or Bittern, on the "flying bridge". He'd hear pings and echoes, as well as radio reports generated by other escorts detecting a u-boat, or any ship seeing any part of a u-boat. Locations would be given in relation to his position. "3nm SE of you" for example. In time, other player-operated roles might exist on the escorts such as asdic operator, hydrophone operator, gunnery officer, DC officer and navigator.
In order to remove as much of the boredom as possible, I suggest that allied escort crews be able to "teleport" to and from any escort. If leaving one un-crewed, this is notified to the convoy commander, allowing him to set an area to which it should now move, operating under it's AI control. This will allow a limited number of allied players to prosecute DC attacks on a u-boat whilst the convoy commander moves other escorts to other contacts, which they can then teleport to later, in order to "do the fun bit". This mixture of AI and player operated behaviour allows the AI to deal with the humdrum patroling side, whilst giving the attacks themselves the best possible reality. As a human player is capable of much better tactical decisions - he might choose to keep an asdic search going for some time, dropping DC's sporadically - in order to keep a u-boat down long enough for the convoy to move away a distance - or hunt it until it's sunk!
It's also possible that a skeleton crew of players operates each escort, only joining a particular escort to a fully-crewed status for the asdic search/DC attack when it's general location is known....
I'm firmly convinced that this mixed AI/real-player solution, if it can be coded, allows for a given number of escorts to be controlled according to the mind of the convoy commander, whilst keeping at a minimum number of additional players required to crew them, and therefore reduces the load on the server that another 30 (allied) players would involve to crew all escorts.... It would also reduce the boredom involved of "dashing about" in a Corvette at 18 kts!
The general effect of these changes, especially in concert with variable detection ranges (#46), would be to create uncertainty as to whether or not, or when precisely, a u-boat is detected. Because the response to a detection is driven by a human mind, rather than AI, and instead AI is used more to do the bidding of that human mind, traps and stratagems may be used to counter a u-boat attack. Examples might be: Chasing down an intial detection with tribals or bitterns, then human players take over the tribals to prosecute initial attacks, whilst a flower-class is sent also. When the flower arrives, it takes over from the Tribal and continues with searches/dc attacks whilst the Tribal is sent haring back to the convoy to close any gap in the escort screen. A Bittern in then sent to join the Flower class, taking over the search/attack, releasing the Flower-class to chase the rear of the convoy (initially). Finally the Bittern leaves to rejoin the convoy, leaving the u-boat now well out of a firing position, if indeed it has survived. The CC would then direct Flowers towards the front of the convoy as opportunity arises, with faster escorts covering the rear of the convoy?
Intelligent use of the escorts, with players in the above example manning the Tribal, Flower class, Bittern sequentially, would cause much longer asdic searches/dc attacks. With no "safe depth" from asdic contact, (but in practical terms a relatively safe depth for dc hits) it would also allow for a more finessed damage-model to be put in place over time, and a much more varied gaming experience for an evening's play. So human-augmented AI, where decisions are placed in the hands of the human "convoy commander" (CC), with AI manning escorts and complying with directions from the CC eg "go hear and asdic search" to a given ship, and human players jumping at will into escort ships previously manned by AI, allows for a minimal number of allied players to give the convoy defense a much more realistic and intelligent defence?
Rendering range of a uboat to a human escort player would need to be linked to light-level and visibility, to side-step players using gamma to see u-boats further out, at least mostly.
49. Change lobby simple-radio choice to a per-boat choice, not a lobby choice, and to be able to freely change between simple and complex "on the fly" in game.
On organised games where real morse-code is used, it would be enormously useful if boats lacking a radio-operator (as sometimes happens, either through lack of volunteers, or latency problems rendering mutilated morse signals). So if a boat lacks a radio operator it could employ simple radio to send and receive, whilst the other boats can use morse. If a radio operator capable of using morse joins, then it can be changed back to complex radio. Similarly if a game starts and it's discovered that there are serious latency problems rendering morse unintelligable, all or some of the "complex" radio-operators can change to simple-radio without the lobby having to be restarted. RENDERED (partially) MOOT BY IMPROVEMENTS TO MORSE
If the simple radio boat sends "encrypted" then the morse signal received by other boats would require decryption. (possibly as a subsidiary selectable setting?)
Once the "per-boat" approach to settings is introduced, it could be extended to allow skippers to choose their own torpedo load-out, whether they're using automatic engines and so forth. This would be especially useful for when multi-boat games are short of a few players.
If a u-boat captain survives "x" missions, and gains mission successes, then the load-out avialable to him might include, date permitting, the use of a few exotic torpedoes, such as "zaukoenig" or "lut" torpedoes, with more average players receving them later in date? If he's on a killed boat, (or logs out from a boat subsequently killed) then he loses this privilege?
50. Variable height and build of crew and officers.
Although this would be a nuisance from a coding point of view, as eye-height would need to vary with changes in height, as would uniform geometry, this would help players, especially those who regularly play together, to discriminate between one player and other by their height and/or build, rather than just the tool-tip or hat configuration. It would also make the crew rather more realistic looking. Height and build would be randomly assigned on 1st play session after enactment, and then kept thereafter.
51. "Alarm" bells in every compartment? I don't know if this was the case, but it seems to me very odd that there are not alarm bells in the engine rooms, NCO mess, officer's mess and forward torpedo room. I'd be really interested to know if these existed elsewhere in the boat other than the control-room. I'm fairly confident that they must have, if only to ensure crew went to their battle-stations, or were primed to run forwards to assist with the dive angle change required to dive quickly. (Oh for an animation with running footsteps of crew vaulting into the torpedo room as fast as they can! There may not have been the alarm switches to start and stop the alarm bells, but I'd be extremely surprised if there were not additional bells in those compartments - or - that the alarm bell in the control room wasn't so loud it's use wasn't missable in the messes, forward torpedo room and engine rooms. It's possible that alarm-bell switches were in those room, in order to alert the whole crew to an onboard fire or chlorine being present....?
[EDIT] Since writing this idea, Stosstrup has written to me and shewn me what appears to be wartime drawings, demonstrating that repeater alarm bells were indeed present in most compartments, however, that the switches that turned them on were indeed limited to the control-room and conning tower.
52. Sea-gulls in coastal waters (in daylight) as an aid to detections and determining convoy heading:
In UK waters, and I'm sure in the Baltic, a great many sea-gulls will follow any boat, astern, looking for food in the wake. Periodically, they'll land and rest on any moving ship before flying again in its wake.
It occurs to me this could be used in game for a couple of subtle but useful purposes. Firstly that being around the stern of the ship, primarily, they could be used to aid determining if the convoy is heading away or towards the observer. They could also be used to draw the eye towards a periscope too long left up, or to a surfaced u-boat. Whilst no individual gull will be visible at 5km or so, a cloud of them following a ship or u-boat might well be. Finally there's the very evocative noise of their cries adding a bit of atmosphere. At night they usually return to land I believe, or if flat calm, roost on the sea. I'd recommend they be used in the three northern sea areas, but not the Biscay area?
53. "Silent running" - Using amplitude of player's voices in in-game comms to influence whether or not a detection is made via hydrophones.
Suppose you are moving at dead-slow past an escort, making no avoidable noise, and someone fails to whisper an order over in-game voice - maybe you now get detected!
Ideally this would apply to Discord as well, although I doubt this is possible? It would certainly add to the anxiety-level when operating close to escorts! Naturally, I'm not really saying that one person talking in normal conversational tones would get get the u-boat detected (unless he shouted), but rather, the general level of all voices talking, be applied, so that all non-essential speech ceases when operating close to escorts, and that whenever possible, a lower amplitude (volume) of speech be advisable....
Other noises inside the u-boat might also be triggers for detection: Prolonged blowing, or large degree of blowing, of ballast, trim, negative tanks. Contactor operation, bilge--pump, hatches and doors opening and closing, use of echolot on 1000m depth setting. (I gather it emits a louder sound on that setting, than on the 100m scale). The latter change, has a greater impact as you might at first think, as it means in depths between 100 and 185m, it might not be safe to use the echolot within 100m of the surface, or on the 1000m scale, meaning that an accurate plot of underwater location may be needed to track of position and therefore depth. as the available depth for the initial dive, with only use of the low-sound (100m scale) once at a depth of only 101m and deeper.
54. Collapsing bulkheads, boiler explosions, impacts of sinking ships with the sea-bed, steam-whistles sounded on torpedo strike, implosions due depth,"whoop whoop" sounds of attacking escorts.
There's a number of "3rd party" sound effects hearable either on hydrophones, or in the hull when submerged (subject range), or when surfaced, that could be used to complicate the sound-scape for hydrophone operators during the course of attack, and add to the atmosphere if surfaced and on the bridge when heard.
55. Observer mode on escorts or merchants.
Crew who are surplus to immediate needs on the u-boat - eg the dive officer during a convoy chase or surface attack, or most of the crew after a torpedo launch, can choose to change their point of view to that of a sailor on:
1. The nearest ship (with a key to cycle through other ships further away)
2. The nearest escort (with a key to cycle through other escorts further away)
3. The nearest Tribal (with a key to cycle through other Tribals further away)
4. The nearest Bittern (with a key to cycle through other Bitterns further away)
5. The nearest Flower-class (with a key to cycle through other Flowers further away)
If their ship is sunk, then they return to the u-boat, or otherwise can elect to do so at any point. During their absence, a bot is created in their place. A skipper can enter a command to bring all crew back to the u-boat if needed.
This would allow for players to experience the point of view within the convoy as torpedoes strike home. Or miss. This should be a lobby setting, so that the ability to 1st person view from within a convoy or escort can be suspended. (not all skippers will want crew disappearing in this fashion! If 3rd party DC explosions become a thing, then it might also allow for players to watch a DC attack on a u-boat. (but not their boat??)
56. Independently settable brightness for outside and at the eye-piece of periscope views, and another for inside. (two sliders)
I find that in order to set my brightness so that I can see masts (or even ships!) at night, I have to endure very very bright interior. It would be useful if there was a slider for the interior, and another for outside and periscope views, so that both can be optimised.
57. Gain to range placard at hydrophone station.
Requires no further explanation!
58. Other sea areas: Gibraltar strait, Atlantic in, and outside of, the "air-gap", the Med', US coastal, Scapa Flow.
These difference sea areas would allow for a whole range of different types of missions, from getting through the heavily patrolled Gib' strait, to getting into Scapa, to Atlantic warfare with, and without, aircraft (subject date). In addition to these more varied mission possibilities, there's also additional relatively shallow seas - and deep ones - further adding to the possible variety, especially on organised games such as 13th Flot, 9thFlot, Duyfken and Frost.
Developing these maps would also, potentially, be ground-work towards an eventual campaign mode which might make use of them, if designed with that in mind. Ability to rendezvous with "Milch-cows" at sea, of getting torpedoes/fuel oil and food from interned German shipping in "neutral" ports (both of these occurred for a time) would be a useful adjunct.
59. On cold days, in northerly latitudes eg Norwegian Sea or Baltic, have the crewman avatar emit the slightest amount of visible breath as they breathe. Tie the amount to the amplitude of their in game voice signal at any instant they are talking. If not talking, resume slight visible breath to interval of normal breathing. Increase rate if actively pinged. This effect should be VERY subtle. Disable visible breaths on bridge or on the casing.
60. Lip movement when talking: Using the amplitude of in game voice comms signal for a given speaker causes their lips to move in proportion to volume of speech. (those of you old enough will recall the kids program with puppets called "Thunderbirds" which used this same principle to cause the puppets to appear to be talking" synchronised with pre-recorded speech. The same thing could be done with our in game avatars in real-time.
https://youtu.be/gqe2rWWX9io
61. Valve open/closed position earlier in rotation that full movement.
Having the closed position slightly earlier in the rotation in the closing sense, [edit: and vice versa for opening] would help prevent valves being left fractionally open or closed causing unwanted water being introduced into into tanks, or conversely, prevent air being blown into them. It is usual, at least with domestic plumbing, for taps (faucets) to have a delay in causing water to flow when a tap is opened, and likewise to cease the flow before the tap is fully closed. To my mind this is how our valves should be operating, in order that a positive closure or opening of the valve occurs.
62. Moving the forward torpedo to the side.
This is necessary to allow, eventually for the controls to set gyro angles, right at the front between the tubes to be accessible. Currently the collider for the stored central torpedo prevents access to this, and the safety and firing levers. It actually makes more sense for the 1st reload to be stored either in line laterally with tubes 1/3, or the opposite side, with subsequent reloads being opposite an empty tube on one side or t'other. In the case of the aft-tube, it should only be on the rack after a torpedo is fired, and probably only whilst the boat is surfaced, owing to the difficulty of operating the emotor with a torpedo hanging centrally - or to one side. I do not think that an aft reload would be left on it's cradle at any time, but would be reloaded when surfaced, as soon as possible.
At some point in the future this change would allow for torpedo man being a playable role, if not, perhaps one with a dedicated full-time player?
My estimate is that the 1st reload would be kept on the suspended cradle for as little time as possible, in order that the two lines of berths was available to the off-watch crew in that compartment, and in-line with either tubes 1 and 3, or the other side in-line with tubes 2 and 4. As the reload process was very noisy with winches and chain-hoists in use, I very much doubt this was done with proximity to the enemy, or, was done at depths making hydrophone detection unlikely. I'd be interested to hear of anyone with further information on reloading procedures.
63. "Part time" roles/tasks
This idea was born out of thinking about #62. There are some roles on the boat which are not conducive to being played for a long continuous period every game, because tactical considerations and player preferences make it unusual for them to be needed for extended periods in many games. The Dive Officer is like that, as once you've got the boat to PD and trimmed, the extent of the rest of your task is to maintain PD, keep the OP usable with the very very occasional crash-dive! 1st TOI's are almost always surfaced attacks, so it's a "job" where you get more out of it by "being otherwise useful" than you often do by limiting your actions to the specified job.
It occurs me me that there may well be scope "temporary jobs" (such as helping the radioman by decrypting the Enigma for him, or acting as a lookout watching ranges to escorts and so forth, that do not currently have a dedicated role. In the future similar roles for "anyone who is free" - might exist, perhaps involve manual reloading of torpedoes, refuelling and rearming at a Milch-cow or clandestinely at a neutral port perhaps. Checking the batteries for cracked cells, or the bilge for acidity (to prevent chlorine generation) might be a thing, or aiding with damage-control. In other words stuff that doesn't support a full time role for 3 hours, but which, would add content.... especially for those of us who for perfectly good reasons, may find themselves under-employed. Something to think about?
Suggested "drop in" roles:
Winching up torpedoes in torpedo room from under-floor stowage.
Aligning torpedoes vertically and laterally with a given tube, inserting same.
Opening/closing bow caps
Setting gyro angles in torpedo room repeater
Firing torpedoes
Inspecting batteries, isolating damaged ones
Closing isolation valves to stop leaks
Pumping fuel from saddle-tanks to internal ceiling tanks
Cooking at the galley (meaning "I am afk-meal")
Toilet (meaning "I am afkp") (illuminates the toilet occupied light, 1 of 2)
Radio assistant (meaning "I am afkphone")
Running to torpedo room (assists in getting bow down in crash dive, player nominal-weight x 4)
Fire-fighter
Medical Officer - applies bandages/casts to crew injured in DC attack, allowing them to resume duties. In intervening minutes crewman unavailable to work controls.
Hydrophone operator
"Off-watch" - puts crewman avatar in a bunk (meaning: "I am extended afk")
Compressor duty
On deck - manning deck-gun, AAA or on watch/UZO. Cancelled by hatch being closed with player inside.
Enigma decryption with "publish to orders and radio-log" buttons. (it was a terrible error making this radioman only) imho, as neither real-morse use, or decryption are tolerant of interruptions?
In effect these would be "things to do" which any player not currently engaged in activity could drop into as role, whilst not giving-up his current role. So you might see if you pressed the tab-key: "Bloggz" Dive Officer/(Battery examiner). This would indicate that he's usually the Dive Officer, but it currently examining the batteries for damage after surfacing. The role he's currently doing being in bold. If he's doing a role, then any protections - such as non-machinest roles being unable to operate the trip switches or engines - would be removed, allowing another to operate them if required. On resuming his normal role, such protections would be re-imposed.
The idea here is to provide other tasks for players to do, that are not sufficient to warrant a single player being allocated to doing that, but which players who are predominantly doing another role can drop into during periods where they otherwise do not have much, or anything, to do.
64. Neutral ships in workshop. The image below is a fairly typical one of the carriage of painted flags and the ships nationality when it was neutral. It would be a cool feature if ships could be assigned as neutral in the Workshop, and then have two things happen in game:
a) that the ships carry such neutral graphics
b) that tonnages from sinking them can be i be normally recorded, ii have a negative effect on tonnage and equal to the neutral tonage set, or iii have a punitive 2x tonnage penalty for sinking; all settable in the lobby.
https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,onerror=redirect,width=1920,height=192 0,fit=scale-down//media/america-neutral.451705/full
65. Ability to mark ships as "Do not sink" on the "identified ships" page. This might be used to avoid sinking a "neutral" or to help prevent aiming at the target of another boat.
66. "Rauchen verboten" (no smoking) in dull-red on inside walls of bunker. This was written on at least one wall of every bay containing u-boats, in letters about 4 feet high.
Lignite
10-24-23, 08:48 PM
67. A "spawn unit" addition to the mission editor. Whether it be a simple timed event, or more in-game variables (such as, 'spawn on contact' for example). I expect a some additional enemy AI may be required as well, such as 'go to radio location' or perhaps just 'rejoin convoy'.
Would certainly be fun (scary?) for an unexpected destroyer to arrive in an hour or so, or dare I hope for aircraft to arrive? Perhaps with the inclusion of a random 'spawn circumstance', a completely replayable mission of uncertain future could unfold. Dare I say the beginning of a possible campaign? I've said too much.
You have sure compiled a good list of suggestions Fidd, most are great ideas and many could some day see the light of day perhaps, with time.
You have sure compiled a good list of suggestions Fidd, most are great ideas and many could some day see the light of day perhaps, with time.
I believe we talked about it somewhere else here at Subsim.com but I believe another usefull addition:
A 'spawn unit' addition to the mission editor. Whether it be a simple timed event, or more in-game variables (such as, 'spawn on contact' for example). I expect a some additional enemy AI may be required as well, such as 'go to radio location' or perhaps just 'rejoin convoy'.
Would certainly be fun (scary?) for an unexpected destroyer to arrive in an hour or so, or dare I hope for aircraft to arrive? Perhaps with the inclusion of a random 'spawn circumstance', a completely replayable mission of uncertain future could unfold. Dare I say the beginning of a possible campaign? I've said too much.
Thanks! That's an excellent idea. I've not used the workshop myself, but I know from others who do that it's pretty limited in terms of what can be fettled with to give a wide variety of events. Being able to bolt in more random events such as ships joining or leaving the convoy, or aircraft arriving towards dawn, would be a brilliant idea! Thanks for contributing that one. Really and truly someone who uses Workshop regularly should start a "Workshop - new ideas" thread all of it's own. I'm not saying they don't belong here, merely that it would be good to have such a thread concentrate ideas for it there... Please EDIT your post above and make it # "67."? It should certainly be there.
68. Segmented "liftable" centre deck-plates
I'd be interested to know if this in fact exists of the centre deck-plates along which we walk in the two torpedo rooms, currently some 25 feet long, were in fact made of more, shorter plates. Underneath these was the storage for spare torpedoes and (I think!) access to the bilge, battery compartments (probably under the messes?) and the aft thrust block and engine shaft glands. Taking these one at a time, eventually I can see having these liftable and segmented o aid same, would be great for:
Torpedo spares access: attaching cables/chains for lifting new torpedoes as part of a player operable reloading sequence. Lifting and replacing the deck-plates being the beginning and end of that sequence, allowing for more of the submarine to be seen and accessed.
Bilge access: allows for damage control tasks to pump or move water from one area of the bilge to another. (as in Das Boot)
Thrust block access: ditto. These glands were a vulnerable area for leaks in a submarine under depth charge attack, and allow for the boat to commence sinking by the stern, or to allow it to become out of longitudinal trim, adding content for both a damage-control party but also the dive-officer to have to offset said longitudinal trim change by pumping water forward. Said change (addition of longitudinal trim) would also add (optional?) difficulty for the dive officer to need to control longitudinal trim not just for the scenario of water ingress at the glands, but to need to offset weight loss due torpedoes being fired, especially at PD....
Battery access:
This models a new part of the hull, allows for strapping (isolating) damaged battery-cells as a damage control task, but if the bilge is also filled, for the whole problem of chlorine generation to occur if salt-water meets battery acid from cracked cells. This in turn implies that the overall current storable by the battery can be reduced due to batteries being damaged. Not to mention the player having to don a gas-mask with limited field of view, fogging lenses, darkness as they slide along the battery compartment on the "trolley". Above this would also imply the need for breathing-bottles/masks, and not being able to talk for more than a few seconds at a time, NPC's coughing etc etc.
In conclusion, much interesting, if occasional content, could be added were these underfloor areas accessible and or viewable. In order to make sense of the deck-plates, imho they need to be broken up into shorter lengths for easier removal and stowage?
69. 2nd strike of the C key causes that series of menus to disappear, same with M key, provided the "write" key in navigation is not "on". Ideally the write key should revert to a another function if the map is closed in the interim.
70. Other boats hits and sinkings represented on logbook in parentheses, with u-boat number, with seconds for hits only.
Eg, in logbook view:
19:22:35 (U96) launch tube 1
19:23:05 (U96) launch tube 3
19:24:57 Heavy tanker 12 hit (U96)
19:25:02 Heavy tanker 8 hit (U552)
19:25 Heavy tanker 12 sunk (U96)
19:26 Heavy tanker 8 sunk (U552)
A check-box in the logbook would remove all hits, sinkings of other boats from view, giving in effect, the current logbook mechanism.
This would be a very useful utility for post-game analysis of which captains are hitting early, and by how much, without removing the fog-of-war, as captains can choose to play the game with the view of other boat's hits etc being suppressed from their logbook view.
71. Reform of "workshop" tool.
This game, imho, is at it's very best, in organised games written in the workshop, exploring the full envelope of what's possible to vary, rather than the standard settings invariably used for casual lobby skirmish games; especially with full crews and 4 boats. I've not used workshop myself, but am aware from talking to those that do, that the current "tinkerable" workshop settings are still overly restrictive, meaning that in organised games it is exceedingly difficult to diverge much from the "standard" game. Please submit your ideas for additions or changes you'd like to see able to be created for workshop missions and I'll edit them into this post. To start with:
1. Ability to spawn outside of hydrophone range, to allow for initial convoy position and mean heading to be sent on Enigma to all boats, then requiring navs to plot an intercept until hydrophone and thence visual range may be established.
2. More varied weather, wind, precipitation, fog, mist, volumetric and stratiform cloud.
3. Aircraft patrols/attacks, Catalinas or Sunderlands or Wellingtons.
4. Ability for ships to either detach from the convoy, or, to join it at a particular time or position.
5. Hunter-killer groups able to join, or be attached to, a convoy, or, to be away from the convoy but able to intercept u-boats attempting to get to, said convoy.
6. Ability to define start position, heading and speed of convoy, as well as -u-boat starting bearings and distances up to 100km from convoy
7. Ability to define start positions for u-boats relative to convoy defined at the instant they spawn in. (allows for sequenced or irregular-timed log-ins/positions without causing undue delay)
8. Ability to have AI Condor, AI Ju88's when in range (most of all sea-areas), presence of Escort carrier in convoy precludes Condor arrival until it is sunk.
9. Ability to set minefields in coastal sea-areas
(Please add your own)
72. Avatar customisation as persistent player appearance with the following features:
Build: "thin, "medium", "heavy-set".
Height: 5 foot 3" to 6 foot.
Age: 18-35 affecting facial-hair, build and facial appearance.
Facial hair: - clean-shaven to bearded.
Clothing: Civilian, Military, Spectacles, Hats, for trousers, shirts, hats.
Rank insignia: when military clothing is selected (resettable each game if desired to change).
Dirt: Degree of dirt applied to items of clothing.
Haircuts: From German military to longer. Longer-hair rank-dependent.
The aim of this is to make fellow-players with whom one plays more recognisable by appearance as distinct and unique individuals.
73. Sea bed composition
Hitting the sea bed may, or may not, generate loud noise and/or damage "subject" to both how hard it is struck, and by the composition of the sea-bed at that locale. So soft silt or sand will create one one set of outcomes, and rock quite another. Rather than go to all the trouble of mapping it manually, if it could be done at all, I suggest a simple algorithm is used whereby the rate of change of depth away from any x/y location is used to determine the sea-bed composition. If the rate of change of depth is very small, then the sea-bed is more likely to be silt/sand, if high, then more likely to be rocky and injurious to the u-boat if it struck?
I suggest that different advantages and disadvantages be applied for impacting the sea-bed. Possibilities might be:
Rock - considerable noise to listening hydrophones on escorts, some damage to hull/u-boat hydrophones/planes/single propeller. Difficulty for asdic getting a firm fix on the u-boat.
Might lead to prolonged, but inaccurate depth-charging if under 180m depth?
Sand/silt: quieter impact, sound related to both forward and vertical speed. Possibility of damage to hydrophones, once stopped no enemy hydrophone detection possible. Asdic detection possible, but at less range than a u-boat in the water-column without the sea-bed being proximate? Of use in shallow-seas.
74. Ability to save images of the map, logbook, radio-log and mission-end screen with a single command. And/or automatic save configurable when missions ends. Would be of enormous use to captains for debrief purposes in organised games.
75. Difficulty setting - Escorts
Imagine there was a lobby setting which controlled how far away from the convoy escorts might spontaneously move, as well as the bearing change away from convoy heading when they did so.
Now imagine that this was an invisible setting only known to the mission designer or lobby creator.
This would allow for games where the escort AI was less predictable, and the game more varied in outcome, BUT would allow newer players to use less arduous settings if they so wished...
If an escort apparently moving parallel to the convoy suddenly makes a 60 degree turn towards the flank of the convoy at 18-36 kts, for a kilometer or so, then relying on detection distances where the u-boat captain "knows" he is utterly safe from detection becomes more tricky....
So on "easy mode" escorts might patrol with only a small change of heading from the convoy course, and a short distance at low speed; and on "hard" they might turn 60 degrees or more, and move a km or more, and do it quickly meaning that players would have to spot the threat, and act, much more than is currently the case. Because the setting is invisible to players, one can no longer rely on being 2000m (or whatever it is) as being "absolutely safe" from detection, because you don't know, as a captain, with what difficulty setting you are contending.
This effect could be enhanced by having harder settings initially making gentle, slow speed changes of heading, for shorter distances, and only later doing the quicker changes of heading, for longer distances, at and at greater speed in knots. Thus keeping the apparantly random effect concealed for longer...
76. "long games"
Suppose it was possible to generate realistically sized convoys, and each had a name eg "PQ17". Now suppose one player starts a lobby and plays the game. When he's finished playing, the composition, time of day, position etc are saved and uploaded to the cloud. The next player to start a lobby is given the option of making a completely new lobby, OR continuing the PQ17 convoy, which would then involve downloading the PQ17 end-game status of the previous lobby attacking PQ17. If he elects to attack PQ17, then he and his mates, with as many u-boats as they have, can attack the convoy, generating a new status in turn to be uploaded to the cloud....
Time might pass between attacks, so that the convoy makes progress between attacks. The convoy then either makes port, or is partially or completely sunk. All the players who participated are then notified of their victory/draw or loss, subject to the numbers of u-boats and merchantmen sunk etc.
This would allow for a more narrative story of the battle for a convoy to develop over RL days and weeks, by essentially linking the results from one lobby to the next, to the next until a series of attacks on a convoy is complete. When a boat is out of torpedoes it can rearm at a milch-cow, or return to port. Dependant on which the skipper elects to do determines whether a 2nd attack may be launched by him on the same convoy, or if he needs to commence an attack on a nearer convoy. It could also be made interesting, because attacks early in a convoys transit, would put the u-boat under greater threat of being attacked by aircraft, BUT, in choosing to prosecute an early attack on a convoy, a greater number of larger ships would exist within said convoy. So there's an interesting risk/reward paradigm going on there too.
This would also, counterintuitively, allow for shorter play sessions, so that a crew could play for say 2 hours instead of 3, but play together more frequently, attacking the convoy at more regularly at shorter intervals, torpedoes permitting. It could be broken down further, so that a u-boat might play for an hours play, each RL night, firing circa 7 torpedoes, and then the following RL night play the second tranche of torpedoes, with them only having moved to attack the following (game) night. Such a system would help gaming periods to be of shorter, or longer RL time periods, rather than the 3 hour plus period of Frost/Duyfken/9th Flot games, although it would not preclude them, as players desire. I have noticed that some friends, who I think would greatly enjoy the game, are rather put-off it by the incredible time-sink it involves, with playing 4 x 3 hour games a week. It basically limits the game to popular play by retirees and kids!
(I may have been misleading with "a few" new ideas!)
77. "Technical notes". This would be on the "C" command as a tab. It would be automatically synchronised with a folder on the users pc, via which he could view jpeg images or rich-text (only?) whilst in game, by browsing to the "Technical Notes tab".
This might well be put to different uses by different players, and a sub-tab would exist for every game-role. So a player playing as Dive Officer might store tables shewing the plane-angles for fastest dive to depth at any given speed. A radio-operator might have a table of Q codes, other radio syntax, and morse code for letters and numbers. A Chief-Engineer might have engine settings for particular speeds and so forth. Basically a very flexible system whereby helpful material can be stored and accessed by your own game front-end. If you swap roles for a game or two, or within the same game, simply browsing to the correct sub-tab of your new role, would bring up any technical-notes appropriate to that role you have in the relevant folder...
The notes would only be viewable by the user, and only from their own pc. If someone produced an excellent set of notes or useful image, then those can be exchanged, but would have to be on that user's pc, in the appropriate folder, when viewed. For each role, I suggest that a cap be placed on the size in kb that can exist in any given folder, so as to avoid issues with the game when a folder is accessed.
78. Sound-effect of morse-key being operated "clack clack....clack" audible in the control-room when the radio-operator is keying his morse-key, but NOT when he's receiving incoming morse. This would allow other players in the control-room to determine if the morse "dits and dahs" they can hear are an incoming or outgoing signal. If the former, then with voice attenuation on, a spare player can move a little to hear the radio operator's voice, (or in case the Skipper doesn't hear it himself on the new voice-tubes....)
79. Cargo-specific effects of torpedoes.
These might cause: a persistent static, low level flames (relative to the initial explosion) through which, or against which the convoy passes, causing slight illumination of shipping. flames very gradually fall astern of the convoy lasting for half an hour or so? This being a possible effect of a hit that flames a tanker. Possibly attended by large amounts of black smoke (fuel oil) or higher but briefer flames (petrol)
and...
Very occasional massive explosion effect from hitting a ship with a) a large tonnage, and b) randomly carrying munitions. Probably an effect one only sees circa every 5-10 games, so that it remains note-worthy and dramatic. Remains of blown apart ship sinks immediately after arcs of superstructure and other falling debris land all around. Rare but extraordinary to see.
80. Using the battery breakers (trips) as a variable for reversible depth-charge damage.
The breakers on our boat are for protecting the e-motor from too much current . In reality (I just learned) they were also, or entirely, breakers to protect the battery. It occurs to me this latter feature could be used with light DC damage, to plunge half the boat, or all of the boat, into darkness from a relatively close DC hit. This would rob the boat of propulsion partially or completely, and into darkness until the e-motor rheostat is wound back, the breakers reset. Moreover, it would conceal the amount of damage done until lighting is restored. If crush-depth were semi-random, but also decreased with DC attacks, perhaps with damage-control via isolation valves to stop leaks, then a deal of problems and required tasks to complicate the aftermath of a DC attack......
Having the breakers, one, or both, operate as a temporary loss of function under DC attack, and all that implies for changing the e-motor settings to resume propulsion without the breaker going off again, might be a good start to a more finessed "damage control"....?
81. In game voice, possible detection of voices via hydrophones (sum of all amplitudes of players simultaenously speaking), if voice amplitudes rais to "normal" conversational levels. Forces players to speak more softly when in proximity to escorts, and to avoid many speaking at the same time.
Similarly, add the "clack" of the contactor to the detectable sounds on escort hydrophones. Compels several behaviours to avoid detection: use of creep-mode, no changes of battery configuration when near escorts. The sound of the contactor is fairly loud, so I'd put it a roughly the detection risk of employing the bilge-pump underwater.
82. If historically accurate, could the number of the u-boat be added to sides of the conning tower to aid identification from abeam when the front insignia is not visible. Preferably this would be a setting each captain could assign when in game, so that (for example) U96 could represent itself as "U135" if desired.
derstosstrupp
11-13-23, 07:26 PM
Definitely accurate from a pre-war perspective. Numbers were on the side and the Reichsadler on the front of the tower. With the outbreak of war both were removed.
Ah well, that puts the tin-lid on it then. I had hoped that it had remained the case throughout the war, as it would have been useful in the larger multiplayer games to ID a particular boat by such registration letters. Oh well, back to the drawing board!
Edit: A universal light-signal for recognition would work:
U96 red white, red white, etc
H552 green white, green, white,
H564 green red, green red, green red
U307 white white (pause) white white
4 x greens - I'm watching you pass me
4 x reds - about to manoeuvre, watch out
EDIT As an alternative, perhaps a small pennant or life-bouy could be added in a different location for each boat, so the pennant, or position of the life-bouy or similar could be used to tell one u-boat from another?
etc
83. Variable hydrophone range.
This could be used to put uboats beyond visual and hydrophone range, at game start, with the convoy position at time xx xx and heading being given by BDU Encrypted radio signal, thus giving some much needed content for navigators and radio-operators to determine an intercept; without that intercept taking hours to make (although that too could also be done)
(Idea from Decafbad)
It could also be a lobby-setting that initial hydrophone range is limited, so that a uboat would be forced to use navigation and Enigma decrypts to find a convoy, then broadcast the location of the convoy so that other boats can find it, however, once the u-boat gets within a specified range of the convoy (8km or so???) the hydrophone will not produce the sound of the convoy, regardless of gain, but once within 10km, thereafter the range-limitation is lifted. The advantage of this method is that initially the Nav and Radio operators would have to work out the course to intercept the convoy, BUT the time taken to reach it would not be unduly long. Once the convoy is within 10km (say) the hydrophone operates normally...
84. Morse aid for sending
The development build has an aid for turning morse signals into letters, with letters and numbers ordered by their dit or dah composition, which is a great way to help operators rapidly find a letter when taking down morse and recording it as letters and numbers. This is to the left of the screen.
What about adding one organised in letters of the alphabet in alphabetic and then numeric order on the RIGHT of the screen too? This would aid operators in finding the correct dit and dah sequence for a given letter when sending out a signal in morse?
85. Restoration and improvement of radio-log
The radio log has been a valuable resource in multiplayer, multiboat games. It removal from the c menu is a backwards step.
What we need, in the "message meaning" screen of the Enigma decrypt "paper" form, is:
1. Restoration of the radio-log to the c menu
2. A "Publish to radio-log" button from the "message meaning" field of the decryption form of the Enigma, and a similar means of publishing typed letters taken down from morse transmissions. The latter needs "publish to radio-log" and a "write down on Enigma form" for subsequent decryption). (The letters should be transferrable from the decoded morse into the "decryption" tab of the Enigma, if the radio-operator takes down an encrypted signal.) In "simple radio" this would be done automatically, perhaps also with the decrypted message?
86. Occasional random escorts joining/departing convoy
As a very "special-treat", on rare occasions - think once in 25-50 games played order of magnitude - it might be interesting if an escort did something really unexpected, such as joining a convoy as an extra escort, or leaving it, or ranging further from the convoy than is normally the case. This might serve to make the convoys+escorts behaviour just a little less predictable, and require that a watch be kept all around a surfaced u-boat and not just in relation to the convoy and nearest escorts. A tribal arriving over the horizon at 30 kts or more might throw a spanner in the works from time to time. Being a random event, rather than a configurable difficulty, there'd be no warning, other than those monitoring the convoy spotting it by making a routine all around lookout.....
87. Falling debris - and splashes - after torpedo hit
A modest amount of falling debris after a hit emanating from the site of the hit upwards and towards the u-boat that fired the torpedo. As said debris hits the water, it cause multiple splashes in the water. If the ship is carrying explosives as cargo, then the effect is much greater, and over a larger distance. Some debris, especially carley-floats, remains on surface from any sinking.
Another typical sight, especially if a hit is towards the engine room, was a massive and prolonged gout of black-smoke and sparks from the funnel (stack) as over-pressure drove all the embers and soot up through the funnel. (often visible on wartime films of such sinkings)
88. Speed of sound propagation in air/water used to determine when, at a given range, sounds are heard in relation to the event:
Speed of sound in air at surface: 340m per second
Speed of sound in water: 1481m per second
Example 1: At 1km range, a torpedo-hit will be seen as a flash/explosion at (say) time 15:00:00, with the sound heard inside the u-boat at a little over half a second later, but on the bridge, the report of the exploding torpedo would be heard at 15:00:03, or 3 seconds after the hit is seen.
Example 2: An escort drops DC's on another submarine 2km from your U-boat at 21:00:00. Inside the boat, the first you know of this is the sound of the exploding DC's 1.3 seconds later, but the sound of same from the bridge would be 6 seconds after they went off. If one allows a 2 second delay for the explosion to cause the plume of water to form, then were you in the Conning tower watching the escort, you'd see the DC plume 3.3 seconds after the charges detonate, and hear the detonation (at through water speed) 3.6 seconds before you saw the plume (0.67 seconds for distance through water + the 2 seconds before the plume forms)
Example: 3 You see a ship hit by a torpedo at 23:00:00 whilst you are 5km away. Inside the u-boat, the sound is heard 3.37 seconds later (at 23:00:03.7. If on the bridge, you'd hear the explosion 14.7 seconds after it occurred! (at 23:00:14.7)
Attenuation of sound with frequency in air https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/415545/how-does-frequency-relate-to-attenuation-and-why
Attenuation of sound with frequency in water https://www.britannica.com/science/seawater/Acoustic-properties
NB Decaf may have better sources/clearer explanations. The "take-home" is that sound attenuates quicker in air, and in both cases, the higher frequencies are lost first (if my reading of this is correct?)
89. Listing, broken-keels and by the stem/stern sinkings.
It might be some nice eye-candy/interesting if the manner in which ships sank was related to the placement of the hit, and the type of ship. For example, a shallow hit might cause a ship to list and slow, a deeper hit a list, but faster sinking, a magnetic hit under the keel a possible "broken back" and so forth. As far as I recall, SH3 did this rather well. It may be the case this is done already, but as I'm very rarely on optics, I've never seen it!
90. Merchants pitching, rolling, yawing in heavy seas, inversely proportional to weight for a given sea-state?
This might help complicate deriving range (from vertical measurements), AOB and convoy heading, so that a spectrum of difficulty is presented for games, helping to ensure player retention long-term, by providing scope for as much difficulty as old-sweats can handle.
91. No safe depth from ASDIC/Hydrophones/DC's
I would like to see the end of the "get to 185m and you're completely safe from detection/DC attack".
To that end, there needs to be a new geometry applied to detection, with Asdic providing accurate range, bearing and depth, whilst the u-boat remains inside asdic range, and the escort has not closed to the range where the ASDIC loses contact. As the escort loses ASDIC contact, the escort hydrophones can estimate (rough) range and bearing, and speed of target (if heard) but not depth.
AI would be programmed to establish the depth, range and bearing, then to prosecute an attack at speed on the last known location from ASDIC, adjusting for hydrophone readings of range and bearing, but assuming no depth change.
Once ASDIC contact is lost, an escort (and any others joining the hunt) would execute a "lost contact" pre-programmed ASDIC search, which requires establishing some distance from the u-boat before commencement. If the u-boat is making noise, then that (bearing and rough-range) is used instead to bring the ASDIC onto the u-boat, resulting in a shorter interval for the next attack. If the boat has gone silent: dead-slow/creep-mode, no torpedo reloads (?) then it typically takes longer for an escort to re-establish ASDIC contact. The deeper a u-boat is, the greater the potential distance between where the escort drops DC's and the position and depth of the u-boat when they go off, again, if silent, the escort gains no adjustments from the hydrophones, and the DC'ing is less accurate.
If a u-boat manages to avoid being picked-up by AI ASDIC+Hydrophones, on it's lost contact search, then the escort prosecutes another. If the u-boat evades being located on the second, then it has escaped the escort and the convoy de-alerts. If the search period (configured in lobby) is medium, rather than short, then 3 searches have to be evaded, if long, then it's four.
The above system would greatly assist in forming a spectrum of difficulty for the game, by making operations in long period searches in shallow water extremely difficult to survive, through to short search periods in deep water being much easier to survive, but, and this is crucial, still involving some risk, as now ASDIC detections at 185m would still be possible, resulting in a DC attack, albeit a less accurate one...
92. Shout accompanying the "Alarm bell".
Pressing the Alarm-bell causes a shouted pre-record "Alarm" from the bridge down into the tower and control room, if the boat is surfaced. If remote from the control-room , ie in the engine room, or if submerged, then just the alarm-bell is rung. NB the engine and emotor rooms need alarm bells! (but not switches) Consideration could be given to making the shouted "Alaaaarm" only occur if a player is actually on the bridge? The pre-recorded sound should be selected from a reasonable large number of exemplars, preferably of different German voices?
93. Difficulty level bonuses.
Whilst it's possible to graduate through different roles in the boat, usually from helm towards captain, fundamentally any given role, once learned, confers no extra skills to be learned one the basic job is learned. This might be considered due to the need for bots to be able to do every role, or it might be that the devs thought that all tasks needed a basic accessability level for new players, rather than being a sim, it was a game.
This seems to me to be a missed opportunity in the first instance. Bots should be able to do all the basic tasks well enough, and players can learn the basics to a degree by watching them. However, if we take the dive-officer as an example, one could make extra valves operate for a player who wants more to do, or a greater challenge, by adding longitudinal trimming, necessary for depth keeping, or torpedo compensating tanks to deal with. If these controls did not operate when in use by the bots, or a newer player who does not wish to deal with those, then some roles on the boat could have their "life" extended by providing increased difficulty.
So why might crews want this? There's more risk if a DO is finding it harder to maintain a precise PD. Suppose that as you play on the harder settings - eg playing real radio rather than simple morse, using the Enigma etc, or in our DO's case, dealing with more realistic trim and compensating tanks, then that player could acrrue points for tonnage gained whilst playing the harder role, and lose it by getting killed. The SUM of the points aboard might permit one or two Lut, or Acoustic torpedoes in the pre-game loadout, or other "slightly early" adoption of kit for the NEXT game. It might be a higher capacity battery or similar. Having newer players on the boat would also add benefit in this way, to aid training and good experiences for new players, rather than getting the old sweats into a crew and then not helping bring on new players.
Possible voluntary extra difficulties:
Helm: realistic lag between rudder-movements and reactions of heading change.
Toppling of individual gyro-compass repeaters. Temporary complete loss of gyro-compasses (from DC attack).
Dive Officer: Compensating tanks for firing of torpedoes, longitudinal trim-tanks, lag in effect between any trim change and movement of the boat. Small lag in effect for planes and movement. Bouyancy instability if DC's detonate above, or below. Inertia for any given movement of the u-boat.
Radioman - mandatory encryption of all signals. (achieved by penalty of using words on a banned list for en-claire transmission. Real morse. HFDF of extended transmissions, or overly frequent ones, especially close to the convoy. Ability to operate DFing kit to plot a line towards another u-boat or escort, and a rough range. Faster transmission rate of bot-sent morse.
Engineers: More realistic recharge rates, need to move fuel to header tanks (once) per game. DC damage to exhaust valves causing diesel sea-water flooding (in addition to exhaust hull valves being left open when diving).
Captain: Need to sent and receive all signals encrypted. Otherwise all the optional difficulties from each role electing to play at a higher difficulty.
All: Torpedoes require manual player movement and alignment, insertions for reloading and (noisy) recovery of spares from below deck-plates, using winches etc. Manual firing of torpedoes in torpedo or emotor rooms. Need for torpedo doors to be opened and shut, heating and charging electric torpedoes before firing.
And so on. With a bit of thought, optional increased of difficulty could be added to most roles without causing problems for the bots provided that if a player with an optional extra difficulty on, comes off the controls, then those settings are reapplied when he returns, but are otherwise no longer occurring.
94. Lights reacting to each other.
It would be good if when a uboat is detected, or the track of a steam torpedo is seen by any ship, if it's searchlight beam ceased moving around, and more or less fixed on that location (of the nearest detected uboat), with adjacent ships gradually similarly directing their search towards that point. Ideally, the more ships that do so, the more the detection-range of a surfaced uboat, or the periscope of one, increases. So instead of a detection range for the alert, and one for the unalarmed convoy, there'd be a gradual increase in detection range as more searchlights join in - if there's something to spot! A more nuanced spread of detection-ranges would help move the game into a more analogue "judging the risk" rather than the more "digital" "we're out of detection range at 2051m" sort of deal. It would also allow a lower detection range for the other side of the convoy, where fewer searchlights are trained his way....
95. It further occurs to me that a similar "analogue detection ranges" could also be applied to ASDIC, so that if one uboat is detected on asdic, a number of nearby escorts join the hunt, with both the lateral and vertical depth of such searches being influenced by the number of escorts joining the hunt for a particular boat. This would likely make evading laterally increasingly more difficult, especially if the escorts joining the hunt are fast-moving. It would also complicate staying undetected, as it would no longer be a sure-fire evasion to CD to 185m. Instead, with one escort above you, the asdic "floor" might be 160m, with (say) 15m deeper per escort joining, so if there's 4 in all, then one would have to dive to 220m (gulp!) to be sure to evade Asdic. Randon crush-depths would ratchet-up the tension!
A nice side benefit of this is that attacking a convoy where the nearest escorts are slow-moving corvettes would be fairly safe, one with sloops and corvettes less so, and one with more destroyers than corvettes downright dangerous, because the escorts could combine more quickly than would occur if the nearby corvettes the only close escorts..... This would in effect, simulate (ish) the "creeping attack" where 1 escort maintained asdic contact, and joining escorts fired/released DC's on command from the stationary escort. This made it very difficult for the uboat to manoeuvre whilst the attacking escort was in the dead area for it's asdic. It proved fairly effective, and whilst the advent of "hedgehogs" and "squid" rendered it less necessary, it was used until the end of the war, as it was a more certain means of destroying a u-boat than simply having two escorts conducting individual attacks. This method would likely be a lot simpler to model in terms of AI behaviour, than formally coding AI cooperative hunts as movements?
EDIT - addition: Another nice aspect of this is that because the current certainty of safety at 185m is off the table, once a second escort joins the first, it's no longer possible to know when escorts have ceased attacking, meaning that bursts of speed and turns would serve to make re-detections more likely, and precipitate further attacks, with safety only being gained once at least one of the joined escorts have lost contact....
96. Variable alert behaviour
Rather than zigging being a configurable lobby setting, I think "variable alert behaviour" might be more interesting. Lets assume a u-boat is detected, it doesn't matter "how".
Case 1 A fairly immediate zig occurs, away from the detected u-boat. The escort moves towards the u-boat, and when it's over it's position, the convoy resumes it's previous course from that point on.
Case 2. A fairly immediate zig occurs, away from the detected u-boat. The escort moves towards the u-boat, and when it's over it's position, the convoy commences a new course +/- 30 degrees from that point on 3 minutes later.
Case 3. No zig occurs, away from the detected u-boat, but convoy changes speed upwards by 3-7 knots (to a maximum of 12??) The escort moves towards the u-boat, and when it's over it's position, the convoy resumes it's previous speed from that point on 6 minutes later?
Case 4. A fairly immediate zig occurs, and a speed change, away from the detected u-boat. The escort moves towards the u-boat, and when it's over it's position, the convoy resumes it's previous course and speed 7 minutes later..
Case 5. A fairly immediate zig may or may not occur, away from the detected u-boat. The nearest escort moves towards the u-boat, and when it's over it's position, the convoy resumes it's previous course from that point on. Other escorts join the 1st whilst it maintains hydrophone or ASDIC contact, eventually a destroyer replaces non-destroyer escorts over the detected/lost contact area, releasing corvettes and later sloops, back to the convoy, keeping the u-boat down until well astern of the convoy. The destroyer then returns.
If one could not forecast with certainty how the convoy and escorts will behave when under attack, in the way we can now with both zigging and non-zigging games, and any of the cases above (or similar options) occurred on a more random basis, then the game becomes more variable in outcome and occurrences, which I think improves replayability? By having it as a lobby setting, then those who wish to play without AI response variation could do so, but those who wish to have less predictable AI reactions could likewise do so. This might be a useful intermediate step towards "playable escorts" where decision making as to the defence of the convoy was player organised, rather than purely AI driven.
97. Cumulative tonnage and surviving contiguous patrol count black board in every U-boat bunker bay, for all 4 boats.
EG:
U96 140,000 tons 12 patrols 0 deaths Captains: Bloggz, Twistelton-Spinebracket,
U307 12,456 tons 1 patrol 1 death Captains: Newguy
(etc)
This would only apply for organised games. The mission uploader would have to upload a special code which would cause the stats to be be updated in the black-board, so when players enter the next game, they see the cumulative stats correct to last mission in the series. If the organisers of the game wish to re-zero the stats, then they'd need to acquire a new entry-code to do so. The stats would track the u-boat, not the crew, but would record the captain(s).
98. Damage types.
I was thinking about damage today, and how it might be handled. It seems to me that a multipronged approach of different damage-classes might provide for both realistic events, problems to address, priorities to set and a great deal of variety in outcome and content.
Lets consider possible models. This is not so much about specific items being damaged, and more about different classes of damage:
Class one: "permanent" damage. This would be damage that would essentially limit the depth a u-boat could remain at, and if deeper than that, require it to reduce in depth. It could be as simple as "hull-strength" that is diminished by close DC hits. It could also cover damage to hull-valves, ie a leak would be caused which could only be stopped with damage control and a reduction in depth. It remains at the damaged value for the remainder of the game (as our "light-bulb damage currently behaves). Broken battery-cells, destroyed cylinders from engine damage might also be class one.
Class two: "temporary" damage: This would cover damage, or leaking so caused, that could swiftly be taken care of, by isolating a section of pipe, tightening a flange and so forth to stop a leak or a release of high pressure air. Or even extinguish a small fire. The damage and effect would persist until fixed, however, once fixed, the damage-state of those items returns to zero. So this form of damage, whilst possibly serious and contributing to problems, is not permanent in the manner of class one damage, and would apply no constraint to the boat or crew once it is fixed. Note that this form of damage could also be applied to a whole slew of potential electrical, instrument, telephone and so forth problems. The same systems might be damaged by class one damage, so, you might lose the a system in whole, or in part, but be unable to fix it. Until you attempted to, you would not immediately know if the damage is repairable (class 2) or irreparable (class 1).
Class 3: "degrading function" damage. This is damage that is permanent, but which reduces function, rather than renders something broken or failed completely. Examples might be a prop-shaft vibration that increased hydrophone detection range, or, a loss of some functionality of the hydrophone, a limiting of movement of the plane's or rudder, or a reduced upper-limit to which high-pressure air that could be stored. It might render a particular helm-station unusable for steering etc. It would necessitate changes to normal-working practices, and add some problems for the crew, but not in and of itself be a cause for the loss of the boat directly, in the way uncontrolled flooding might cause. A wounded crewman would also come into this category, with concussion effects, a sling affecting movement etc.
Class 4: damage is simply class 3. but with fixable components, so it involves a short to medium degraded function, however, one that could be fixed and countered. Examples might be loss of instrumentation forcing use of standby instruments, or those in other areas (eg the Dive Officer's deep depth guage being broken, causing him to need to use his standby one, or, reports from the tower. Or it might be the loss of a particular gyro compass, lighting etc. All of these would be completely repairable, but, might take time to fix.
With any one, or a combination thereof, of up to 4 of these 4 damage classes being inflicted via close DC attacks, it could provide crews with no damage, unreparable damage requiring a reduction in depth, or permanent degradation of function, or fixable degradation in almost any possible combination; adding, on occasion, a need to analyse, prioritise and effect repairs, possibly with some reductions in function as these repairs are done, in almost endless possible permutations.
Obviously there'd need to be some relationship between where the DC was in relation the u-boat when it exploded, in terms of causing damage to the appropriately located systems. So a hit near the bow should likely NOT affect the rudder! The extent of damage and ability to effect repairs should probably be limited the operator of damaged item, and the machinists.
It is of course a complete given that the radius of effect for a lethal DC would have to be greatly reduced from current values, and that the various classes of damage move outwards from the instantly lethal progressively, one to four (damage class). So, class 4 damage would occur most frequently, class 3 a little less so, and so and and so forth.
With longer and more persistent DC attacks this could provide memorable content, the opportunity for good teamwork, as well as a lot of problems of initially unknown severity or cause having to be addressed, making "getting detected" a rather more serious - and risky - enterprise than it sadly isn't currently.
By classing damage thus (or similarly) I think it should be possible to strike the right balance between successful gameplay and penalties for getting detected and DC'd over time, that would always remain interesting to contend with, both as individual players, but also as crews? I'd not envisage this as causing problems each and every time you are DC'd, but, occasionally giving a slew of problems if you're hit well or in a prolonged attack. So an unlucky early hit, reducing max depth, might cause you to suffer a prolonged DC attack causing all sorts of damage, or, you might evade the 1st set of charges, get deep, and suffer only a very few not awfully close DC's, and get away with just some light class four damage, if any....
99. Ability to "lock" other boats. It would be handy, on occasion, if a lobby starter could prevent other boats from being manned in order to enforce his preference for a single-boat only operating in that lobby. Ideally such a lock should be reversible in game.
100. Thoughts on the need for playable escorts:
This is I think something that would revolutionise the game.
The basic premise of playable escorts, as I see it, is to have a have a human player directing the defence of the convoy, or the AI if no-one takes the role. The "Convoy commander" would be able to direct AI escorts to behave in particular ways, such as to maintain a position relative to the moving convoy, to conduct an ASDIC search on the way, or to rush there above convoy speed, and THEN conduct a search. The idea being that A human directs the AI, the AI conducts the bulk of the thankless patrolling tasks, but if an ASDIC or visual contact is made, then players can pile into that escort(s) and conduct attacks, or maintain ASDIC contact (the depth limits for asdic/hydrophones might need revision?). So human players can force a u-boat deep and keep it down by potentially re-acquiring it via a lost-contact search.
This would make the penalty for being detected more serious than it is now, as well as conferring new content to all concerned. More importantly, the knowledge that a human player is seeking to destroy you, and conversely, you as a u-boat crew are endeavouring to outwit him, should add a frisson of competition and memorable game-play! Escorts would have a realistic and finite number of DC's (and perhaps hedge-hog rounds) adjusted so that attacks against deep targets may result in the wastage of limited rounds/DC's. It would be great, post-game, to discover the captain of an escort who gave you a very hard time! Or sank you!
On entering a lobby, one would pick allied or German, but no allied slots would be fillable until at least 3 German players are in game. There would be no indication to allied players as to how many u-boats there are, nor who is crewing them. If at any stage there are no German players in the lobby for a period of 5 minutes, the allied players are notified?
The whole aim here is to allow a human controlled defence of the convoy, with an AI transit of an escort to an area or extant contact, but then put humans in charge of the hunt and destruction of a u-boat if human allied players are available. If they are not, then the AI functions as now. The second aim is to do away with the digital precision with which detection-ranges and so forth are known by u-boat skippers, Instead, there would be a range beyond which the u-boat would not render, (in order to protect u-boats from being spotted due to gamma manipulation. Instead, a manned escort would need to physically spot the u-boat inside that limit range, or, be directed to it by an AI escort which is within the normal detection range. DFing, by both sides might be another wrinkle to add, whereby the direction or even position of the convoy or escorts might be betrayed by radio use....
In my view, playable escorts using AI but also minimising the impact of AI in decision making wherever possible, with players hopping about different escorts on the fly, could add a huge amount of content, without the necessity of large numbers of extra players being on the same host, or indeed much boredom....
101. Visual distinction between (NPC) bots and live players.
I sometimes find it difficult to locate a particular player, if there are bots in use and his appearance is similar to bots. There are a number of ways this could be dealt with, but one nice one might be badges of rank (1 advancement per 100 hours play in a role, with next promotion at 230 hours total time (etc)?
This would help indicate the experience a given player has in a given role, but also, help in this case, to disambiguate at a moderate distance within a compartment, who is an NPC (who have none), and who is a player. Differences is dress, physical size of avatar, head-gear, or presence thereof - all these things could be used. Whatever the system, I think it's important that avatars have sufficient difference in appearance to be able to quickly distinguish NPC's from players, and to identify the latter?
102. Translucent sea "death cam" and "torpedo cam"
It would be interesting, if it was possible, post game, to see recorded cams with a translucent sea, showing for example incoming artillery fire, or DC's that cause damage or a kill on a u-boat viewable from any 3d aspect and at any range from the u-boat. Enacting this would also serve as an opportunity to add 3rd person DC splashes and detonations/water spouting to the game generally.
It would be necessary to record, and progressively delete, the "film", so that only the period of 8 minutes prior to a torpedo shot to (say) 5 minutes after the last shot, or a few minutes before a u-boat being killed, are recorded and then post-game, be downloadable (?). The idea being that even if you get killed, there's some cool footage to see of how that arose. The torpedo-cams shewing the period shortly before firing to (circa 5 mins after the last shot) could be, at the players discretion, added to the death-cam if that boat is subsequently sunk. Or, not added, enabling a permanent record of cool-shots to be standalone films, in all likelihood covering the 3 normal TOI's. An accurate recording of time would be useful, as would being able to run and save the cams of other boats if desired.
By making the sea translucent, and having the u-boat, other ships, escorts, dc attacks and torpedo tracks visible, and the view azimuth, depth and range movable on the fly during the "playback" a really useful post-game tool would be available, as well as lots of cool footage for would-be players to view. Consideration might be given to have the ability to watch a torpedo-cam viewable from on-board a ship NOT hit in a piece of footage, or that from on an escort conducting a DC attack?
Assuming a sensible set-up of the viewing position of the film, the u-boat would be visible under-water, likewise the track of torpedoes it fires, hits on ships, or escorts dropping DC's, or, the view from within the convoy as ships are being hit. The position of other u-boats, and their torpedo tracks, if within the time period of the parent-u-boat's film, would also be shewn. In games where firing is to a TOI (Time of impact) this would tend to obviate the need for saving more than one film per TOI.
The general idea being that post-game, the captain's pc would look at a file recording a period before the death of the U-boat (if it occurs) and the torpedo cams, using just sufficient positional information recorded throughout the game, which is then automatically "pruned" of the duller bits to produce manageable files which then be uploaded by him and downloaded by players, and thence replayed via the game's front-end. The view azimuth/position/depth and range value used to view that would be saved, and then an option to save the film in a you-tube friendly format would be given, so that particularly interesting of action-packed videos of gameplay could be edited and seen on you-tube et al. By putting these films into a common video format, with the point of view/azimuth/depth etc being settable and adjustable on the in-game view, it would become possible to intercut footage and sound recorded of the inside of the u-boat with the external death/torpedo cam, some very cool, useful and good promotional footage could be generated by players to help show off the game's strengths.
Naturally, the load on the hosts pc when saving the 3d positional information of u-boats, merchants, escorts. DC/torpedo/deck-gun fire/flares/sinkings would need to minimal. Having the ability for a lobby NOT to have recording of this type might be sensible?
103. Hissing noise of compressed air in the control-room, any time high-pressure air is being released, no matter the compartment from which the valve is opened. This would help dive-officers realise that there's an open valve somewhere, especially the diesel start valves, which are often missed due to the general noise level, as well as prompting him to reverify all his own valves are closed as appropriate. The noise should possibly be a relatively low frequency version of the usual "hiss" when an air-valve is opened. The reason for creating this noise in the control room, is that that is where a good number of the high-pressure air-cylinders are located.
Consideration could be given to the adding of the port electric compressor, and give this the ability to gain compressed-air even whilst submerged, providing no crew remain in that compartment, and intervening doors are closed. Entering an airless compartment would be possible for very short period of a minute or so, allowing: Compressed air available to blow the bilge, and a partial MBT blow to get the u-boat's hull-valves above the waterline, to in turn open the hull valves (equalising the pressure in compartments) and starting the diesel-powered compressor in the usual fashion. Once this was done, it'd be possible to complete the MBT blow, and get to the surface?
Primarily we need some means other than continuous and unremitting watching of the compressed-air gauge, to tell players that there's a discharge of high pressure air on the boat at that time?
104. Cupboards and contents - and depth-charges.
It might be fun if some items loose in the control-room, or within closed cupboards and lockers elsewhere, were strewn about the deck (floor) in the event of near-misses from DC's. This might be clothing, tins, boots, gas-masks, saucepans, etc, each in a compartment where such items might be found. If items were in plain sight prior to the detonation, eg the chess-board and pieces, or books and folders in the control-room etc, if they vanished to be replaced by the same items now disarrayed...
Closing cupboard or locker doors, or clicking on the debris, would revert such debris to it's former stowed position.
Consideration might be given to adding the noise of some items crashing onto the floor in the immediate aftermath of a DC detonation?
105. Hurricane lamps - or similar portable lamps.
Torches (flash-lights) are useful, but not always very adequate. Seeing the tops of "black +/-" oil valves on the diesels can be very difficult to see when the boat has been damaged and light-bulbs destroyed as torchlight from one's own torch cannot be positioned to cast light on them. It might be handy to have a few "hurricane lamps" or similar larger battery-operated temporary lighting available for use in such situations, which would also serve to give some situational and appearance variety to individual missions where they are used?
I would suggest that they be installable on certain horizontal surfaces of approximately desk height, eg on the tables in the NCO's and Officers mess, the desks in hydrophone or radio room, the small desk area in the diesel-room, or (perhaps) on the floor in the emotor room. Some fairly stark shadows would need to be cast with softening of shadows where remaining lights in other areas cast light on said shadows. I find it hard to believe there was no provision for portable lighting other than individual torches, and would be interested to hear what form such lighting took! (if anyone knows!)
derstosstrupp
01-10-24, 06:36 AM
105. Hurricane lamps - or similar portable lamps.
Torches (flash-lights) are useful, but not always very adequate. Seeing the tops of "black +/-" oil valves on the diesels can be very difficult to see when the boat has been damaged and light-bulbs destroyed as torchlight from one's own torch cannot be positioned to cast light on them. It might be handy to have a few "hurricane lamps" or similar larger battery-operated temporary lighting available for use in such situations, which would also serve to give some situational and appearance variety to individual missions where they are used?
I would suggest that they be installable on certain horizontal surfaces of approximately desk height, eg on the tables in the NCO's and Officers mess, the desks in hydrophone or radio room, the small desk area in the diesel-room, or (perhaps) on the floor in the emotor room. Some fairly stark shadows would need to be cast with softening of shadows where remaining lights in other areas cast light on said shadows. I find it hard to believe there was no provision for portable lighting other than individual torches, and would be interested to hear what form such lighting took! (if anyone knows!)
The game is missing the emergency lighting system as well. 8 mounted lamps, battery powered, which kicked on automatically at the loss of the general lighting. The only other option was 8 handheld lamps stored around the boat which is what the game avatars carry.
Do you have a picture of the emergency lighting?
derstosstrupp
01-11-24, 05:20 PM
Do you have a picture of the emergency lighting?
They were red, and powered from their own rechargeable batteries:
https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=1301&pictureid=13404
106. New players voices - who is whom?
It would be helpful in game if there was a means by which when someone speaks, and is audible (with attenuation), that their position on the boat, and their handle appear in text in the top left corner. A simple toggle on/off of this feature should exist. This would be hugely useful on a boat where there are many new voices and one is seeking to differentiate them and determine if it's a given person speaking. Voices from tubes or telephones would likewise shew the name(s) of the people speaking. In order for this not to be an "immersion killer", the default for this would be off, perhaps, but simply toggled on when it'd be useful? EG:
"Dive Officer: Bloggz"
107. Crossing convoys. It would add interest to the game if it were possible - but perhaps not routinely done - to have two convoys, possibly opposite-direction - either coalescing into a large convoy, or, splitting off, or passing each other, to complicate the initial stages of the game, especially where it's not "quick start". So, a picture of the disposition of two bodies of ships would have to be determined by Enigma decrypts, hydrophones and visual contact, with the relative positions and tracks sorted out, and their composition, before the u-boats attack one or both of the two convoys.
If one of the two convoys were purely additional escorts, moving to increase the protection of a convoy ahead, but was mistaken for being a merchant convoy on the hydrophones, then this might create a variety of game situations to deal with, especially if it was a faster "Hunter Killer" group of escorts. Independently settable ASDIC (always on/off) would add to this. For multi-boat games, with a lead-boat, this would present some issues for the commander to deal with as he seeks to piece together observations from the radio and dispose his boats accordingly....
108. Pitch roll and yaw (originally posted as an idea in separate thread)
With the usual caveat that this game is incredible work from such a tiny team, does anyone else think that our U-boats seem to "run on rails" rather than small craft, ill-designed for surface stability tossed hither and yon by a capricious sea?
I'd like to see, in time, more varied dynamic and believable sea-states, both externally, in terms of oscillating periscope views and random and unpredictable heavier than normal wave strikes dousing the bridge watch/sending water down the conning tower if the hatch is opened..
But also internally, so that the crew perhaps have difficulty keeping their footing in heavy weather. Has anyone yet induced sea-sickness in a sea-faring pc game? From my sailing days, a heavy wave was quite a visceral experience, in every sense of the word, it was a hammer-blow of a crash on the hull, followed by everything not screwed down continuing blithely onwards despite the boat being momentarily stopped in its' tracks, which usually included me! So there's lots graphically to play with there, sound, movement of the internal view relative to the viewer, (I always liked the "swinging hams etc" in Sh3) the little lag in keeping yourself upright in the boat as you adjust slightly belatedly to the next impact... Sound effects of sprog crews retching... You could have a ton of fun as a developer, even if the heavier sea-states were infrequent!
(Edit - added thoughts)
The sea-state has lots of interesting ramifications: The deeper the U-boat is at periscope depth, the more stable the boat is compared with being fully surfaced. In the event un-stabilised periscope optics arrive in conjunction with differing sea-states, then it follows that there will be a tactical trade-off between periscope depth attained and accuracy of observations, but also, that the U-boat is going to be more likely to be accidentally partially surfaced if it tries to operate very shallow in a rough sea-state. Conversely, operating at deeper periscope depths will give better accuracy of observations, but more intermittent glimpses of the target owing to the periscope being more frequently submerged.
Furthermore, if "swell" - as opposed to wave action - is also modelled, then the direction of swell can become a tactical factor as to how much pitching or rolling and/or yawing the U-boat and periscope views attain. This means that operating parallel to the swell, one would have lots of roll, but little pitching - optimal for measuring target distance, and perpendicular to the swell one would have little roll, but lots of pitching, better for taking convoy speed observations.
In my view these new wrinkles could give a much wider set of difficulty permutations, and give some needed "re-playability" to the game, where each approach to the convoy, has to be considered in terms of sun-position, sea-state, moon-path, sea-swell and visibility... The sea-state could also confer some advantages - much harder to spot a periscope in a rough sea than a flat-calm...?
109. Crowd-sourced "ship skins"
Many years ago, I was involved in a project called "SAC" which changed the appearance of aircraft in a game called "Air Warrior", at a time when "re-skinning" was by no means a mainstream modding process. This involved taking submissions from the player-base of bitmaps and incorporating them in a program written by G42 to make backups of the original game-files, and to swap in historically correct skins for a particular air-battle, period or theatre. It was basically a fore-runner of JGSME.
This resulted in a very wide range of art-work in a very short time, far beyond what the game's developers could produce.
Is it, or would it be, possible for the artwork used to "skin" ships in game to be modifiable in this way I wonder? (If indeed skins are used at all?)
I think it would greatly improve the diversity in appearance of our convoy ships. Ideally there should be some moderation involved so that "bright luminous pink ships" do not result, and the choice of ship renderings be that of the lobby-owner? It'll be important that everyone sees the same art, so that "see that red-funnelled ship at 056?" actually is seen as a red-funnelled ship by all concerned.
Thoughts?
110. Different AI behaviour for different types of escort.
Or, put another way, a variable amount of patrolling randomly away from a general convoy direction, with escorts capable of higher speeds being those most likely to move further away from the convoys mean course.
Or, put the other way around, corvettes, on the slower end of the spectrum of escort speeds, would tend to hold the same position relative to convoy, not venturing too far from the convoy mean course, thus making their station a safer axis of attack than (say) a "Tribal", which being much faster, would be more likely to swing out of position on a random basis before resuming their usual position.
By giving different AI properties to different types of escort, it would mean that surface attacks from one direction might have to be undertaken at greater range, than an attack towards a different, slower, escort type.
The effect of this would be to make the escort dispositions something that has to be considered when deciding from what range and direction, and whether submerged or surfaced, for an attack. It might also mean that deliberately attacking an escort might be worthwhile...
A further wrinkle might be if the escorts changed their basic disposition about every 2 hours of gameplay, perhaps by having all change their relative poistions to the convoy..... or..... the change in disposition of escort types around the convoy commences after a de-alert.....
111. Intermittent sonar setting, in addition to always on and always off.
We know that ASDIC could only be successfully operated when the returning signal wasn't swamped by engine noise, meaning that it was only of use when "looking" ahead roughly 45 degrees either side of the escort's bow, and below a top speed of circa 18 kts. It's effectiveness was likewise diminished in rough seas.
For our purposes, this means that Bitterns and Corvettes would be able to use ASDIC most of the time, but Tribals could not, if above 18 kts in speed.
This would allow an intermediate setting between "always on" and "always off" whereby the Bitterns and Corvettes were (ASDIC) always on, but the Tribals were only periodically on, if any escort made a hydrophone contact, or, a visual one (which then submerged). Further complexity to added if idea #110 was simulataneously implemented, whereby the Tribals tended to range further away than the other two types (at 36 kts), from their "home" position in relation to the convoy, then searching an area with ASDIC at 18 kts, before racing back at 36 kts to their "home" position. This behaviour would make approaching the convoy with a Tribal between you, and it, more dangerous both surfaced or submerged, as the former could rapidly erode the "safe" distance away from escorts detection at night, or catch the u-boat submerged during the periodic ASDIC phase...
As a lobby-setting (preferably a concealable setting), this would again make the distribution of particular escorts something to take into consideration both in daylight and at night, when approaching a convoy...
112. AI gunnery accuracy proportional to illumination
One of the weaknesses in the game is the very considerable accuracy of enemy gunnery v the (tiny) u-boat, compared with the poor accuracy of the u-boats deck-gun v the (much larger) merchants.
It seems to me that the initial accuracy of enemy guns v a moving u-boat needs to be dialled back considerably, with gradually increasing accuracy over time.
One logical way to do this is to make AI accuracy dependent on the sum of these factors:
Range
Natural light (daylight or moon-light)
Artificial light (held in a search0light or with illumination flares above*
Number of shots fired by the escort or merchant
Number of shots fired by the u-boat (aiding seeing the u-boat)
Expertise of gunner (greater in escorts)
Sea-state
Speed of u-boat
Rate of change of u-boats heading
Visibility (fog)
Not all of these would have an equal effect, however, all would cumulatively affect the probability of a hit on a u-boat. This would mean that a u-boat commander might get a few shots off with a deck-gun before incoming fire becomes so accurate that he's compelled to dive. Whether or not he chooses to employ a desk-gun therefore be driven by an assessment of the factors above. It might be that the conditions allow for it to be tried, or, conversely are deemed to make it took risky. The difference with the current game being that it's not simply a matter of the factors of range and time only.
To what degree given factors affect the escorts ability to fire on a u-boat, and which affect accuracy and by how much, is all open to discussion, but the ability to get a reasonable number of shots off and then scuttle down the tower before diving would be some good content now and again?
113. Viewable interior of u-boat from outside, without pressure-hull etc.
I encountered a bug on the beta today, which shewed me the interior of the entire boat on a black background, unfortunately without being able to pan and tilt etc. It was amazing to see, and seems to me to it would be great to do "deliberately" as it were, but with pan/tilt and zoom as it shews off the structure and all the modelling beautifully!
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/991336286445109278/1199875042171945020/bug.jpg
114. Periodic high amperage draw for cooker/electric torpedo battery heating/u-boat heating.
Suggestion: Once per game, when surfaced only, the "cook" notifies engine room that the cooker is being used, drawing 50A or so, for say 40 minutes? When electric torpedoes are loaded, a suitable amperage is drawn (Stoss-trupp/Decaf may know the amperage so drawn per torpedo?) and u-boat heating (when dived only) with a modest current draw of circa 40A.
Why? These ancillary loads (as well as those for radio/periscopes/gyroscopes/planes etc, on the battery will make battery-use more critical, as well as making recharging more frequent and more pressing, adding workload for the engine-room crew. The captain might defer some of these. Consideration could be made to extend electric torpedo distance if pre-heating occurs, or, diminish it from current distances if it doesn't. (Subject to what assumptions are made currently).
Lack of heating could cause visible "breath" from avatars, which could also become a visible and atmospheric indicator of "stress" when dived and under DC attack, with a rise in frequency of breath-rate? Lack of u-boat heating could be used to increase condensation-related electrical problems at some point in the future?
derstosstrupp
01-25-24, 07:03 PM
Hotel load is a deep subject. Very difficult to quantify. All periscope operation was hydraulic, so no worries there. The ventilators were hardly run at sea except during charging and briefly to ventilate the boat after surfacing, so no worries there. Battery heating is hard to quantify, because the automatic regulator only kicked on when the electrolyte dropped below 30°C. But heating drew about 20 A. Eto Battery charging initially was 30 A, which tapered down to 22 as the torpedo battery cells approached gassing voltage. Hard to quantify. U-boat heating can be considered a non-issue as the electric heaters typically weren’t used on war patrol to save battery. Then there is all the other ancillary equipment on the regulated and unregulated circuits. At one point, back of the envelope, I calculated a hotel load on a typical day of about 200 A. That is also high as it assumes careless all-day use of the ventilators. So maybe cut that in half.
I do really like the idea of equipment drawing current. We have data on pretty much every piece of electrical equipment, so this could be modeled.
There is already a net loss of battery charge with prolonged running on diesels, (obviously without recharging!), but it's a tiny rate, in the rough order of 100Ah, and the rate doesn't seem to vary, except by reducing the brightness of the lighting.
As regards the hydraulics, the safest (least awful!) system would be an electrically-powered hydraulic pump, hydraulic accumulator and hydraulic motor in one place near the driven service, to minimise the length of pressurised hydraulic piping, and thus minimise the risk of a cloud of highly flammable hydraulic fluid in the boat during depth charging.
So it'd expect the hydraulic services to involve an electrical load every time they're used, simply to replenish the hydraulic accumulator.
I'd be interested to know how Jerry did mitigate the risks of using hydraulics.
derstosstrupp
01-26-24, 10:53 AM
You are absolutely right. One of two hydraulic pumps could be selected, and, when the oil in the collecting tank got high enough, the pressure in the tank caused an automatic switch to close, which kicked on the pump to pump oil back up into the accumulators. Generally though, the pressure wasn’t allowed to drop to the minimum 48 kg/cm², but was normally pumped up by hand by switching the pump on at 60 to pump it back up to 80.so that the commander always had good hydraulic pressure to operate the scope efficiently. I would be all for implementing some form of the hydraulic system.
115. Thoughts on escort radar implementation....... :ping:
There are a number of players who are somewhat nervous at the prospect of the gameplay ramifications of escorts receiving radar. As I see it, this is something not appropriate for use by AI, but rather one better suited to human interpretation, and the full range of deficiencies early radar possessed.
Early radar was tempramental, and when it did work, suffered problems in rougher sea-states where the escort was pitching and rolling, as any time the radar-head was tilted down, it caused back-scatter from the surface - effectively false returns, and viewed over a period of time, it meant a considerable skill was needed on the part of the operator, to spot an actual consistent return on a given bearing amongst the false returns, if the escort was in rougher water. It is forecastable that AI interpreting such returns is either going to be far too capable and recognising a return as a u-boat, or, will be hopeless at it. A happy medium in AI's ability in almost any situation is usually not realised in game. So, conclusion one is that escorts should be playable before radar is implemented, and it be usable only by human players.
Early radar had an oscilloscope presentation, rather than the PPI (Plan position indicator) we know today. In other words as the radar-head rotated through a bearing, assuming the radar head was not pointing at the sky or the sea surface around the escort, then an intermittent return of the u-boat would occurr, usually with some amount of clutter from the sea surface. The amplitude of the spike in the return would be a function of the strength of the return, with no range indication, other than that amplitude. So, a surfaced u-boat side-on to the radar-head, close to the escort would be a large amplitude, but one at AOB zero would be less in amplitude, and a distant one still less. That of a schnorkel viewed on the radar at range would be very difficult to make out amongst all the other spurious returns by a player.
Conclusion 2 is that player-skill on the escort should be a major factor as to whether - or not - a correct interpretation is made from an early iteration of radar.
Later on in the time-line the PPI should replace the oscilloscope presentation, but according to the pitch and roll of the escort, the ability to spot a contact amongst other spurious returns from the radar-head being tilted too far down, fairly difficult, especially at range. Similarly. as the radar head faces the the convoy, many strong returns are caused, however a ship or u-boat BEHIND a ship generating a return nearest the escort, will create a blank area behind that return, in which a u-boat can remain undetectable by radar, assuming it is surfaced. This would make spotting a u-boat's return the other side of the convoy, very difficult indeed.
As the date becomes later war, more and more escorts should have radar. Radar was preferentially fitted to destroyers, then sloops, then eventually corvettes. The height of the radar-head raising the range considerably. Similarly, as the date becomes later, sets with PPI should become the norm. Failure rates - or periods where the radar has to be turned off, should reduce as the timeline continues. Counter-measures such as Metox should likewise alert the radio-operator that the u-boat is being struck by radar.
My estimate is that AI escorts should not be able to "spot" u-boats on radar unless the u-boat is both surfaced an close - under circa 6km for an extended period. If AI is able to use radar at all! A trail of returns caused by life-boats, carly-floats and suchlike would further complicate use.
116. Password request interface for locked lobbies.
There is, I think, a balance to be struck between the ability of a lobby to be locked, and the ability of a fairly new player to find a game. The other day I logged on to find all 6 lobbies locked, with no unlocked ones, and with in game comms being used, no means of contacting the players to ascertain the password. Plainly, players in a locked-lobby do not wish to be spammed by a player wishing to join, however, I think we may need a means for newer players, who are yet to form the network of friends to play regularly, to join a game.
Suggestion: A player can click on a locked lobby, and instead of entering the password, can "contact captain" ONCE per game, provided that there are 6 crew or less on the boat. If it's full, then that captain cannot be contacted. If there are several boats, the player attempting to gain entry may make a single text-contact to each captain with an unfilled boat, and any captain may then click on a "send password" if he wishes to admit that person, or, decline. Whereupon the player attempting entry has the password automatically entered, but he does not actually see the plain-text of the password (to prevent them distributing it more widely). They can then join the lobby in the normal way, but are restricted to joining the boat of the captain that accepted their request only.
This would aid newer players being able to join locked lobbies without materially causing a problem for that lobby, or adding any burdensome communication to the captain. Players who are banned by any individual in the lobby would be unable to send a password request to any captain within that lobby. This would help preclude trolls and the disruptive to employ the password-request as a nuisance mechanism.
117. Improvement to alerting?
Currently, when any u-boat is sighted, or there's a torpedo trail spotted, or an impact, or an escort in asdic contact with a u-boat, the convoy "alerts" and it's subsequent behaviour makes it difficult to hit targets within. This creates an opposing tension between the game experience of the located u-boat, and the rest of the u-boats in a multi-boat game. Specifically, the located u-boat only suffers (usually) a single DC attack, in what would otherwise be the period of most excitement and drama, namely evading repeated asdic searches and dc attacks, dealing with damage and so forth; and the gameplay of the other u-boats who are left twiddling their thumbs waiting for the convoy to "settle" so they can derive their fun by attacking it.
Something needs to change here? I'd like to see the fact that a u-boat is recently held on ASDIC, as no longer being grounds for the convoy as a whole to remain alerted, and much longer periods of asdic searches by escorts to regain a lost contact. Escorts would nonetheless seek asdic contacts in their areas. Coupled with no safety from asdic contact being made at any depth, (but with DC's dropped to depths of 150-200m being of general low accuracy) the preconditions are then in place for damage-models, crew damage-control, and the stress and anxiety of being under prolonged DC/ASDIC attack/searches; crucially, without inconveniencing other players, in other u-boats seeking to attack the convoy in the interim.
I would suggest that "alerts" be of shorter duration than currently, or that length be configurable, so that an alert is constituted of a heading change, but no speed change. A boat detected that caused the alert however remaining under active asdic search and dc attack for a much longer period than currently with no limit to the depth at which it may be attacked with either hedge-hogs (when fitted) or DC's. I'd also like to see maximum ping-rate increased to circa 3/4 of a second, overheard escorts (or other ships) being plainly audible in the boat, and the noise of DC's going off MUCH louder. 3rd party DC water-plumes would be good too. An alert so caused would last perhaps 6 minutes only, however with a gap opened up in the escort screen as the escort conducting asdic searches/dc attacks falls astern.
I'd also like to see a very severe vertical or lateral "camera shake" - as was the case in "Das Boot" ideally with crew being knocked to the floor, being injured etc. Why the game doesn't already mine the rich vein of content that the experience of being depth-charged confers is something that mystifies me to this day.
118. "typed" potential crew-list of players in game, but not in lobby.
Imagine you could get in game, and add your name and desired roles, and preferred language, to a list visible to all captains in all locked lobbies. Possibilities would be "new player", and/or the usual roles. More than one would be settable. If any of the captains, playing any of the locked games wish for (say) a helmsman, they can bring up their list, and see all the helmsman, or, they can keep the list unspecified and invite any they wish to play with. Or, they might see a player from their own country, and invite him. etc. Players who have attracted numerous bans would be unable to access this feature? Players would also be able to flag themselves as "unavailable" to suppress invitations, were they, for example, waiting to play an organised game.
In the boat, the captain would view this list of currently available players on the C menu. Quite how he should be made aware of players being available in such a system, if at all, I remain uncertain of.
On further thought, if the list of "waiting" players was visible to all in the list itself, and a means of communicating existed, this might also prompt someone to start a lobby. The problem currently is that way we used to assemble as players, pre-game, was discord, however, with the advent of the (better) in game voice, we've lost that....
119. Volumetric clouds and line-squalls.
A "line squall" (LSQ hereafter) is simply a linear series of Towering-cumulus or Cumulo-nimbus clouds, (going up to 60'000 feet or more) associated with a low cloud-base and very heavy rain, making observation of events within the line squall very difficult for surface vessels, and all but impossible for aircraft to penetrate (for reasons I'll not go into). LSQ's can occur over distances from 5 miles to 500 miles, and usually of 5-100 miles width! LSQ's not infrequently occur over the sea, and are a hazard to shipping owing to the very strong winds and rough seas associated with them, as well as very confused seas as they often occur in conflict with, or in combination with more widespread wave action. They feature heavily in reports of naval actions, as for the last hundred years or so they've been used as a means of sheltering from observation and therefore also gun-fire or aerial attack. "Volumetric cloud" simply means modelling these essentially as a 3d object, and likewise the heavy-rain periodically associated with them, rather than simple as a visibility distance or 2d representation.
Why do this? At some point there may be radar-equipped, or radar-directed, anti-submarine aircraft. The LSQ's provide a strong refuge from such aircraft, as no pilot in his right-mind would fly under one, even under orders. The reduced visibilty in one, as well as very heavy rain on the plexiglass of the aircraft would make visual acquisition of a surfaced u-boat all bar impossible at any range. They would also confer a good axis of attack seeking to close submerged, as the escort's hydrophones would be swamped by the noise of millions of gallons of rain striking the surface of the sea. So, the existence of the LSQ allows for variation in the visibility/detection-ranges for aircraft and escorts, subject to where the LSQ is, where the convoy is, where the escorts and aircraft are, and where the u-boats are thus presenting a more interesting "battle-field" where sometimes the weather can be exploited tactically - or where it sometimes acts as an obstacle.
For example, seeing the convoy to take observations would be all but impossible if the LSQ cover the u-boat, or, intervenes between convoy and u-boat. This potentially has other interesting implications, such as 1 u-boat being unable to take observations despite being what would normally be in easy visual range, and having to gain observations from other u-boats to be able to plot an optimal course so as to intercept the convoy the other side of the LSQ...
LSQ's are just as likely in darkness, as daylight, but can usually be readily spotted, as the clouds are internally-lit periodically by lightening within during the hours of darkness. As the energy driving them is caused by cold-air over a relatively warmer sea, rather than the usual solar-heating of land in the case of thunderstorms we're used to, they remain energetic even in the hours of darkness.
Anyway, as they could provide advantages and difficulties for both sides, and the convoy may be routed at any angle relative the LSQ, they could well serve to provide some interesting tactical situations, visually arresting sights, opportunities and dangers, I think they're well worth being an occasional and random treat! (rather than a lobby configurable setting). They also become more interesting when one thinks about a radar-equipped escort suddenly appearing out of the heavy-rain, or, in the years before radar, a u-boat employing one as cover, to get much closer in (daylight?) than it could ordinarily get before being spotted (from within the LSQ)... Then there's implications of the locally heavy seas on whether or not PD can be easily maintained, and whether or not a Schnorkel can be employed....
So, whilst a linear - but a little irregular - set of such clouds, and the weather they engender, is at first sight, not very promising as a thing to add to the game, as one thinks about in relation to directions the game may go, in regard to aircraft, radar and later years weapons etc, then I think it's well worth some examination?
Line Squalls: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squall_line
120. A wish-list of general improvements.
Please make the diesel-engine room, and possibly the e-motor room have sound-sliders for each of all sounds generated within that area, that is separate to the global sound-settings; allowing specified sounds to be louder or softer than the global sound level for those sounds. These should include, diesel engine sounds, EOT "bells", telephone ringer and volume of voices on the telephone.
Please add alarm bell repeaters to all compartments except lavatories, as was the case on a Mk VII.
Please GREATLY increase the sound of DC detonations, and add camera-shake of a directionality consistent with the angles at which the near-miss occurs.
Please GREATLY increase the sound of ships engines and screws when passing overhead or close nearby, relative to a submerged u-boat.
121. Flags for player languages.
It would be helpful for players to be able to "set" the languages they speak, and those they do not speak, using flags of those countries languages.
So, someone able to speak English would use an American, Canadian, British, New Zealand or Australian flag, as would anyone who can speak it. A player whose first language was Polish, second English, but who cannot speak any other language would be shew a Polish flag, then a suitable English-speaking flag.
Indications of a language NOT spoken by a player could be given by a diagonal black field, obscuring half of a flag. So, a Dutch player who cannot speak English might be represented by a Dutch flag, then an English one with the black field obscuring half the flag.
These flags would be visible when a player attempts to join a lobby or boat, allowing both the lobby owner and the captain to ensure that a common language can be spoken by all onboard, or, that he can be understood by all onboard, even if not all of them can understand all of the other players.
Consideration could be given to allow the lobby host to set languages, one of which he'd prefer all onboard can speak. So, a Russian player whose second language is English, might associate a Russian and British or English flag with the lobby. A UN flag could serve as an "any language" indicator?
122. Yells, bells and smells. (somewhat "tongue in cheek")
I'd like to see more atmospheric noise in the boat. For example the noise of sleeping crew in berths, very very occasional German snatches of laughter/banter, especially from the forward torpedo room. Sounds of torpedoes being reloaded. (Stronger sounding EOT bells). Sounds from the galley? This would be a first step towards having the full crew represented by butt-scratching avatars scattered about the boat?
If the e-motor is engaged, at dead-slow, such sounds are suppressed, excepting the torpedo reload noise.
The "smells" can be modelled with an empty shoe-polish tin, filled with the mankiest minging piece of jock-strap (or very unwashed sock!) and a few drops of diesel oil. When playing, simply open and place in front of your monitor, or on something warm so as to infuse the air with "eau-de-uboat", remembering to close it after use to forestall being "pinged" by the escorting wife! For those wishing the full experience, mouldy-bread might be added to the tin!
123. "standing orders".
It would be a useful, and "cool" feature if each player could write a document for the captain role, and that of the chief-engineer, which would automatically be uploaded when that player fulfils either role on a boat. The document would then go on a notice-board in the control room (for captain) and Diesel-engine room, (from Chief Engineer). Clicking on that document would bring it up full-screen, with a "typed" font. it would lay out the responsibilities of all crewmen (in the case of the captain's document, or all machinists, in the case of the Chief Engineer. The uploaded file would be a simple "rich text" file.
Example:
Standing orders by Captain Fidd
Helmsman
Helm is to readback all verbal orders. To operate the TDC as directed, reading back all values as set.
Navigator
Navigator is to keep a running plot of position, to operate the OP, taking continuous bearings of ships to establish their ID, range and bearing, and to establish the convoy course and speed, and to plot same. He is to advise the captain of escorts range and bearing at all times when they become a threat.
(etc etc.)
(End of example)
This would allow captains to write down in formal fashion what they expect of each role, and for players to read same so they know what's expected of them particularly when they play under a new captain.
Likewise, the roles of machinist of port and/or starboard engines could be laid out by the chief engineer, for example what temp he wishes maintained in the full ahead setting, or who will operate which hull valves.
There should probably be a "report" button, so that a player abusing it to cause offence or otherwise not for a suitable purpose, can be prevented from it being uploaded. Get 10 reports - lose the privilege?
124. Two-crew deck-gun?
It might be an improvement if there was a requirement for two crewmembers being present on deck for the deck-gun to be capable of being fired. Perhaps the 2nd could be a loader? The aim here to prevent any given player from being able to unilaterally decide to fire the deck-gun?
THE_MASK
02-12-24, 07:12 PM
THE_MASK aka sober .
I am a bit lost with the future of this game . Is it going to have a campaign mode like silent hunter games ?
There has been talk of that, on and off. My hope is that a convoy defended by AI and human players in escorts (changing from one to the other and back as required) will be implemented before a campaign system is introduced. This has huge potential benefits for making gameplay more varied, more difficult, with longer DC attacks, and no "safety net" of dive to 185m and you're safe. If the alert system were changed to de-alert the convoy once a u-boat is actively being pinged and DC'd, then an individual u-boat could be DC'd many more times (allowing for damage control and a better damage-model) to follow; crucially without preventing other uboats from being unable to attack. Finally it would cause a very personal battle-of-wits between the captains of both human operated escort, and the u-boat below....
My concern with the campaign mode, is that there are a raft of problems to solve to make this viable in WP: SH3 had time-compression, the ability to save and reload a play session, and was unreliant on the TZ vagaries of manning the uboat with an adequate or full crew. Those are 3 massive problems SH3 did NOT have to contend with. So whilst I'm not saying "it can't be done", there are some formidable obstacles to overcome. IMHO of course.
For now, I'm merely making suggestions within moderate-reach in development terms, or, simpler ones that can solve extant problems. Once we have a better understanding of the devs intentions, it may be possible to base ideas on their plans - whatever they may be!
devnull
02-13-24, 04:14 PM
I am starting to question the accuracy of this thread’s title, maybe it’s time to stick the word “dozen” or “score” after “few” 🤣
I am starting to question the accuracy of this thread’s title, maybe it’s time to stick the word “dozen” or “score” after “few” ��
I may have got carried away... :Kaleun_Wink:
Seriously though, once I started putting a few down, they just kept coming. I never expected to still be having ideas at this stage. many of course resulted from conversations with other players.
devnull
02-14-24, 01:49 AM
I’m just teasing you… keep ‘em coming 🙌
125. Smoke from diesels varying detection-range.
To add to the workload of the engine-room crew when surfaced, it might be good if it became more important for the amount and colour of smoke from the diesels affected the detection-range at which the u-boat is spotted. This would make it more important for machinists to ensure they had optimal "blue-flames" at all times, when operating the diesels. It might also mean commanders were more inclined to make the final approach towards the convoy on the e-motor, thus drawing down the battery more. Both would add content for the engineer/machinists, as well as making detection-ranges more "fuzzy" (rather than the "digital" - if I'm outside 2200m [or whatever it is] then "I cannot be detected").
I suggest that making a lot of smoke from diesels being badly de-tuned, increase the detection range by 200-300m or so at night, and 600-900m in daylight?
126. Add three-letter group to beginning of typed text, denoting current role. EG:
CAP - Captain
HEL - Helmsman
DO - Dive Officer
RAD - Radioman
NAV - Navigator
MAC - Machinist
CE - Chief Engineer
Examples:
"CE: Fidd: Do you need the batteries recharged?"
"CAP: Bloggz: not yet, I'll ring it when ready for recharge.."
A similar routine could be added for ingame voice, whereby the role of the person speaking is visible whilst their speech is audible.
Both of these would help in games where one is unfamiliar with the players, and/or their voices, or for poor English speakers to have better awareness of who is talking or typing.
127. "Whisper text"
Text only readable when in the same compartment as the sender.
Purpose: to allow instruction or conversation without causing undue text distraction in other areas of the boat.
"shift/return" to bring up the whisper text buffer?
128. Thoughts on aircraft.
The rumour-mill keeps suggesting aircraft may be devved at some point. These obviously have quite considerable potential impacts on the game. I presume that it's a given that their existence in game would be optional as a lobby setting.
Obviously there are Luftwaffe aircraft capable of patrolling and spotting, and indeed attacking a convoy, eg an FW200, or Ju88's, which patrolled Biscay, the FW's being out further in the Atlantic. In a campaign-game, these could be used to both locate, and track a convoy, at least until the advent of escort carriers or steam-catapulted Hurricanes to provide a convoy with the ability to defend itself v enemy aircraft. At the end of the day, outside of a convoy campaign, it's hard to see what they can actually bring to the u-boat game.
Likewise, the various ASW aircraft, eg Sunderlands, Wellingtons, Catalinas and Liberators (also a limited number of B17's) which actively hunted u-boats night and day, with rockets, DC's, FIDO and the like, present a major problem in terms of gameplay, especially at night, as the combination of Leigh-lights, rad-alts and radar means 9 times out of 10 the aircraft will acquire the u-boat before it can dive, and having done so the warning systems on the u-boat will not give directional information to the flak-gunner. So the advantage, especially for a u-boat with a single 20mm cannon, is going to be entirely with the aircraft, until it turns on the Leigh light, after which it'd only have a very few seconds to acquire the target and hit it. It's hard to see how allied aircraft can therefore be introduced into the game with their ASW capabilities, without generating a lot of crash-dives, failure to close with the convoy etc. Especially as the war progresses in date.
It might be viable in the Atlantic "air-gap", as the only (rarely present) viable aircraft operating there are relatively large Sunderlands and Liberators, with the latter not being an especially effective in the ASW role. Both present enormous targets to flak gunners and neither is quick...
Concurrent devving of the Schnorkel may help, however, these were quite limited in the maximum speed they could be operated, and could still - with difficulty - be spotted on an ASR screen, and thence visually. So even with schnorkel use, having planes in game presents enormous challenges to generating good content with allied aircraft being introduced.
That is not to say it cannot be done, merely that it may have to be limited to more of an abstraction, and likely purely within a campaign game. So, you might have an FW200 telling you where a convoy is, and it's mean-course, allowing BDU to direct u-boats to coalesce ahead of that track. Conversely, if some convoys have an escort carrier, then those aircraft would preclude or disrupt the advantage of having an FW200 tracking that convoy, making it, at the campaign-level, harder to locate and intercept it. So aircraft can, within "the campaign" be made to impact the game as an abstraction, rather than something one sees flying about and liable to attack one's u-boat as such...
Manned allied aircraft, especially in the ASR role, suffer from the same gameplay problem as (purely) manned escorts do, namely that endless patrols had to flown, over hundreds of hours a month, and few crews ever saw a u-boat, let alone attacked one, without the advantages of night and radar/searchlights. So I think "rarity" of the experience of being attacked at night by a dedicated (AI) ASR aircraft has to be key here - ie it's something you might play 30 or 40 games (within the campaign) without ever seeing, but if your boat is attacked in this way, one can expect very heavy damage, if not being rapidly sunk. In any event, that'd have to be an optional lobby setting, as one may readily forecast the general wailing and gnashing of teeth consequent from suddenly being greatly damaged or sunk during a game with little or no warning, and still less ability to avoid that fate! It only makes any sense within the context of a campaign-game, where one's aim is to acquire tonnage and survive for a number of sequential missions!
Again within a campaign, the presence of friendly abstracted aircraft, can reduce the chance - a little - of being attacked by an enemy ASR aircraft, or having enemy Hunter-killer groups vectored onto you, however, in practical terms the problem we're left with is that effective counter-measures in behaviour of the u-boat all suck as u-boat gameplay - eg being compelled to recharge in daylight and submerge at night, or, using schnorkels at much lower speeds.
So, the conclusion I'm rapidly coming to is that even in the campaign game, it's still going to be very difficult indeed to implement aircraft in a fashion where one may come and drop DC's on one, without producing sub-optimal gameplay. It might be possible to have a single Catalina or FW200 flying endless orbits around the convoy once in a few games, but otherwise..
As regards informal stand-alone games. There's no scope that I can see for having ASR aircraft in game, if the capabilities are accurately modelled. Unless, they can only damage, rather than sink, the u-boat, thus presenting damage-control content.
I'd be interested to hear other's views, especially dissenting ones, or ideas for how it could be made to work? To my mind, having the experience of seeing a Hunter-killer group come over the horizon (because you've been spotted on the surface) is one thing, being killed with little or no warning, and virtually no scope for reply via flak, at night, is quite another!
I'll leave it there for now, but may edit amend or add further posts on this in the light of other's thoughts and ideas.
129. Adjustment to AI gunnery accuracy, and to 3rd party sounds of incoming shells. - and alarm-bells and abandon-ship/death!
I think AI gunnery accuracy needs to be toned down somewhat, so that there are a few close misses/waterspouts/audible incoming shell, and detonation on the water sounds before hits occur. (unless the range is minimal)
Broadly speaking, the ability to land hits should be roughly equal between players firing at a given range with the deck-gun, and that of fire from escorts. One could make a case that fire from armed merchantmen would likely be less accurate, however, as they also provide much more stable gun-platforms, for accurate shooting, relative to firing from a pitching/rolling/yawing u-boat, or a smaller escort, I think a case could be made to keep their AI fire roughly on a par with escorts. In all situations, AI gunfire needs to be more accurate than that achievable by a player at a given range, but not to the current degree?
In order for the crew to be able to react quickly enough, all crew areas need to have the ability to hear alarm bells, which were historically fitted to every compartment in a u-boat excepting the lavatories and possibly the radio/rooms. (Decaf has source material). So, the first order of business is to add alarm-bells (not the switches?) to near the diesel station, and in the e-motor room and forward torpedo room.
The second change could be either reducing the rate of fire, or, preferably, the AI's currently un-erring accuracy, so there's a reasonable chance that a u-boat under shell-fire can at least get under before the 3rd lethal hit, properly handled. It stands to reason that a boat that's been hit is going to take on water, at a pretty considerable rate, but with damage-control (wooden plugs) and suitable bracing, it's reasonable to suppose a u-boat might be able to submerge to very modest depths - circa 20m max - with damage-control, subject to whether the struck area is accessible. IE a hit in the tower would be fairly straight-forwards to stop a leak by penetrating shot, one behind a diesel would be very much less so.
It is right, and proper, I think, that a u-boat detected within 8000 yards or so of an escort should come under fire, and thence very likely asdic search and at least one round of DC's, if not many more. There also needs to be the chance of an unfixable damage being inflicted that results - after a suitable struggle - in the loss of the boat. What I'm questioning here is if the AI is correctly and reasonably configured in shell-fire accuracy.
Which brings me onto what happens when lethal hits/a sinking boat arise. Personally I would like to see the ability for the player (or some of them) to "abandon-ship" if the order is given, and be able to leap off the boat to bob around in the sea for a bit before the end-screen. Those who do not get out having the water level rising within a given compartment before being forced through water-tight doors into neighbouring compartments with losses of lighting etc and rising water. Ideally the u-boat would take on a steep angle commensurate with the flooding, and sink as the physics warrants. Consideration could be given to the inrush of water as the top-hatch submerges preventing players getting up the ladder? All this would make for much more dramatic - and yet still believable - content in the event the u-boat is either damaged, or damaged to the point of sinking. A rather better result than the current "BANG! BANG! BANG!" - endscreen?
130. "May I have the password?" / "uboats fielded"
It might be useful if there was a lobby setting whereby a locked-lobby could be:
1.Completely password locked.
2. Locked but allow (single) requests (from any given player) for the password, which the lobby host could accept/deny in much the same way as with joining a boat. Accepting would automatically enter the required password when they next attempt to join that lobby.
3. Locked, except to steam-friends.
4. Unlocked
The above changes would greatly assist in helping to crew, as currently ,with in-game voice being used, rather than discord, it's often hard to contact lobby hosts who have muted discord once they spawn. Understandably, many captains are a little reluctant to leave a lobby completely open, as it tends to lead to all boats being spawned, not infrequently by clueless players who leave u-boats motoring alone and un-crewed.
Which brings me to the next useful lobby switch, which needs to be also controllable from within game, namely the ability to limit the number of uboats spawned, or, to have it limited to one, unless the lobby owner specifically authorises a named player to spawn a 2nd or 3rd or 4th boat. This would allow the lobby owner to control which players assume captaincy of a boat within the lobby, and prevent it when they see fit to do so.
The above changes, in combination, would allow a more flexible use of locking, without unduly preventing new players from getting a game. Indeed they'd be more likely to than currently, because the need for a completely locked lobby would be less, as the host can now control whether or not new players are to spawn a new-boat they're not yet experienced enough to do without causing ructions...
131. "Bolt-on events"
a) (10 minutes?) Provisioning. Loading of torpedoes through access hatches, and positioning to under-floor magazine. Filling spare space in the u-boat with crates of food "carried" and placed by moving "bots" crew.
b) (10 minutes?) leaving port, navigating to open sea from u-boat bunker or port. Wave-off from band/well-wishers.
c) (30 minutes?) game play crossing area under possible aircraft attack, night or day (random).
d) (45 minutes?) Enigma message cites position and heading of convoy. Navigator lays off track, plots intercept. When within hydrophone range of convoy, marks bearing and range estimate. Repeats a little later to establish more accurate position and track of convoy. Radio officer sends result to BDU (encrypted), BDU rebroadcasts (encrypted) to all boats. Closure to visual range.
The time between these events is skipped, but any or all can be "bolted on" to a workshop mission. The idea being to create more of a narrative game where there's an opportunity to see and be involved in some of the non-combat tasks. Not as an "every-day" means of playing the game, but as an occasional event or events, to recreate the whole experience.
e) (10 minutes) return to bunker/band etc.
132. Emotes (mappable to any key):
Salute (Kriegsmarine!) .sa (self-explanatory)
Laugh .la "
Worried/Cringing .wo "
Grimace .gr "
Shaking fist .sh "
Vomiting .vo "
Cheer .ch "
Snore .zz (avatar lays down and snores)
afk coffee .co (shows avatar with mug in hand until movement)
<please suggest others>
Players rationed to two emotes per game?
133. Coloured name tags.
Ideally this would reflect hours played in any given role. If difficult, it should simply reflect hours played in game in total, as recorded on Steam. This colour code would be visible to Captains when accepting players onto their boat, before they click "accept", and to all crew once they're aboard. This would help more experienced players tailor advice to a player whose experience is otherwise an unknown quantity of they've not played together before. It would operate in both senses, in preventing an experienced player from "teaching their grandmother to suck eggs", but also to ensure that a very new player isn't overloaded or yelled at for making a balls of a task!
It might also be possible to vary the apparent age of avatars, with hours played so that inexperienced players have more youthful appearance, and vice versa.
Suggested increments:
Up to 30 hours Red
31 to 100 hours Orange
101 to 300 hours Yellow
301 to 1000 hours Green
1001 hours plus Blue
1001 hours plus. Purple
134. Ability for escorts to "make smoke".
After the first torpedo strike on a convoy, escorts could start making smoke. Self-evidently this will not completely obscure the convoy, but it would make observation of the convoy more difficult for follow-up shots, especially from the side, as escorts travel faster than the convoys base speed, during the period of the alert.
135. Creeping attacks.
This was a highly effective form of DC attack where 1 escort stood off circa 800m from a u-boat, keeping it pinged with asdic, without actually attacking. A second escort would then be directed to the position of the u-boat by the first, not using asdic, moving at dead slow, and dropping a pattern. The u-boat had no warning other than "splashes", as it only heard the pinging escort.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creeping_attack
It would be interesting if our AI destroyers (and later human operated escorts) were able to work as pairs in this regard, especially if the pinging u-boat of the pair followed up with it's attack once the first boat's charges had detonated...
136. No roll option - to prevent nausea.
I find that any perceivable pitch/roll/yaw in the boat - pretty much 3 kts windspeed or above - causes me to become nauseous over time. This is caused by there being a conflict between what I see the boat doing, and the lack of attendant actual movement via the inner ear balance mechanisms. It's essentially the reverse of normal sea-sickness, where one feels the movement, but if below deck, you see no such movement. In both cases it's the conflict between inner-ear and visual references that causes the nausea. (hence the advice to "go up on deck" if ever you are sea-sick on a boat) I doubt I'm alone in this. It would be wonderful if there was an option whereby movement of the boat was able to be suppressed for a player who prefers not to endure this. I fully accept that it's part and parcel of a naval game, and that it's not really on for me to ask a lobby host to always feel the need to dial it back just on my account... Plainly if a player is on the deck or at a periscope, then they'll need the "full roll experience".... :Kaleun_Sick:
137. Variable inertia (as a lobby setting) - "easy to realistic"
One of the less realistic aspects of WP is the lack of inertia. Inertia may be described as: Inertia is a property of matter1that describes its tendency to remain at rest or in unchanging motion unless acted on by some external force1.
In other words, a boat that is out of trim, will continue to rise or descend in the water column unless a corrective action is taken, such as adjusting the trim, but even then, there is a considerable lag between changing the trim, and it arresting the rise or descent. What we currently have is an almost instantaneous correction, without lag. The lag is caused because a u-boat displacing 870 tons (submerged), once it's moving in any direction, requires a very considerable and sustained force to stop it!
Inertia applies in every axis, for turning, for rising, diving, and for changes of speed. The corrective forces applied differ. So arresting an unwanted rise just using trim alone, is a small force, and then will take a good deal of time to occur. If on the other hand, the hydroplanes are used, then their effectiveness depends of the displacement from the neutral position, and also the speed of water passing over the 'planes. It follows from this that maintaining periscope depth with no forward speed should be very difficult, but doing so (say) at slow ahead, would be much easier.
Proposition: A slider on the lobby screen for "inertia". This would allow inertia to be set as it is now (easy) to fully realistic inertia. The effects of this would be to introduce an appropriate amount of lag between moving a control surface (rudder or 'planes), making a change to shaft rpm, or to adjusting a trim or MBT value. As the effect of inertia can be implemented simply by adding a lag value that's determined by the known inertia and corrective force, it may be possible to implement this without dealing in any way with the physics model. (If there is one!)
It has some interesting effects: For example, holding PD, one might want to trim slightly heavy, so the natural tendency of the boat is to sink slowly, then hold it at the correct depth with slight up 'planes. That way, simply reducing the amount of "up" planes will quickly offset any inadvertent rise.
Similarly, if DC's explode above the u-boat, it momentarily causes the boat to rise, requiring use of the 'planes to correct. Conversely, if the DC's explode beneath, the u-boat then develops a descent, and in both cases, the inertia of an 870 ton boat then requires considerable correction. It was entirely possible, and indeed there are many historical accounts of this, for WW2 submarines losing vertical control because too much correction was applied, leading to an increasingly divergent error in buoyancy, until the sub either broached the surface, or, sank beneath it's crush depth. Usually the former.
It may seem counterintuitive to be asking for "lag" when so much effort is being made to design it out, but in this case, I think it's worthwhile to make the operation of the boat configurable, and more interesting if desired. Of course this might better be something configurable on a per-boat rather than per-lobby basis..?
138. Sound improvements:
1. Improvement to sound-deadening when doors are shut in radio and hydrophone compartments. (increased)
2. Additive sound attenuation dependant on number of intervening closed hatches. So, if all 3 doors are closed between the diesel room and control room, the sound of the diesels is considerably muted, and less so for each open hatch.
3. Addition of alarm-bell repeaters to diesel-room, e-motor-room, and radio-compartment. The latter to aid a radio-operator to have another cue to send "DDD" in a multi-boat game. Repeaters for the alarm-bell existed in EVERY compartment except lavatories. (Decaf has original material)
4. Compartment specific sound-level UI for diesel-room.
5. Audible "ping" from "Echolot" when operated on 100m plus scale. (I believe the strength of sent ping was proportional to the depth scale selected when it was operated)
6. Atmospheric sounds for deck-plate lifting, chain-hoist lifting of reload torpedo, torpedo-tube hatch operation, flooding of tube and bow-cap operations, when a reload is set in operation at the TDC. During the reload, the boat emits considerable noise. These sounds as a place-holder until a manual player operated reload tasks are modelled (?).
7. Increased wind/sea-spray hitting u-boat/"slap" of pitching u-boat hitting waves when on the casing or bridge, subject to wind-speed etc set in game. Some of these sounds also audible inside?
8. Considerable increase in volume and number of pings of EOT "bells" - or the adoption of a buzzer, when an EOT operates, especially in the diesel room.
9. Sound of Enigma being operated whenever a message is sent or received, automatically, unless it is manually being used, at which point the actual sounds of it being manually operated are audible, and the "automatic" sounds are suppressed?
139. Two crew deck-guns
One of the perennial problems with the deck-gun, especially on open lobbies, is the clueless or trolls, using the deck-gun without reference to the captain, alerting the convoy and possibly getting the u-boat sunk by return fire. It has been suggested that a lobby setting to disable deck-gun use might be a solution, however, as the circumstances where deck-gun use are hard to forecast, and rare, it seems to me that a better solution would be to require the deck-gun to be served by a minimum of two players, in order for it to work at all. This would render trolls/newbs from using it solo, but also to allow for it's use if circumstances permit.
140. How to handle human escort players "spotting" u-boats/periscopes?
I've been giving some thought recently as to how this might be handled in game to sidestep some of the foreseeable potential problems of having human players "on watch" looking for u-boats, and how that relates to visual detection ranges as currently handled by the AI.
The foreseeable problems are: manipulation of gamma, allowing seeing of a u-boat when otherwise it'd be too dark. Graphical limitations meaning that diesel-smoke or water splashes being visible from too great a distance. Lack of natural sea-foam making it too easy to spot one caused by a periscope feather etc.
Possible methods to forestall these problems:
a) Limit the range at which water effects, such as periscope feather, to no more than the normal AI detection-range, so that a human observer cannot use these as a cue outside of the normal AI detection-range.
b) Limit the render range of both the surfaced u-boat, and the periscope when submerged, to appropriate detection-ranges, modified by fog value (if any), so that gamma manipulation cannot confer an ability to see a u-boat much beyond the detection range at which the AI can "spot" a u-boat visually.
c) Make the binocular view on escorts powerful in magnification, but with a correspondingly small field of view, so that simply panning cannot guarantee spotting a uboat, as it may be outside of the field of view.
d) Allow the binocular view to pan, but only for 45 degrees or so, before the user has to come off the magnified position to reposition for the next pan for the next 45 degrees. Consider limiting the total angle over which any position can pan, to circa 150 degrees.
e) Limit the ability to use binoculars to a reasonable speed of escort/wind value, so that using the binoculars is not possible at very high speeds/strong wave action combinations. If adequately slow, it should always be possible to use binoculars.
Thoughts on alerts with combinations of human/AI escorts.
Alerts caused by uboats coming within detection range of an AI escort can probably remain as they are now. For playable escorts, a manual means of causing an alert needs to exist. This needs to be limited, so that it one cannot cause an alert without actually seeing a u-boat. Else it could be misused. As the host is tracking the positions of u-boats and escorts, and could also track the positions of binoculars (or gun optics), it ought to be possible to require the captain of the escort to view the u-boat, and for his binos/gun optics to be "tested" to see if is pointed at a u-boat when the "request" for an alert is made. This would make it impossible for a human player to cause the convoy to alert, unless his optic is pointing at the uboat when the request is sent. If it is, then the alert can be set in train, causing the AI escorts and merchants to behave in the required fashion.
I think it's important that a human escort captain has the option to NOT necessarily cause the alert at the instant he can. This would allow, if the circumstances are such where a delay in reacting confers some benefit to the escorts - for the Convoy Commander to quietly send off a couple of escorts to the general area of the u-boat, and therefore increase the chance of catching it at a shallower depth when it is attacked. Anything that "muddies the waters" as to when a detection is made, and when it has not been, helps generate varied content.
141. Boat specific and variable presence objects.
I have often felt it would be nice if there were differences between one u-boat and another, slight differences in appearance or location of objects so that when you serve on a different boat to normal, there's a sense of being on a "different boat", rather than having all 4 u-boats look exactly the same, and look the same every single game.
One way to achieve this would be to have objects such as:
Clothing items in the sleeping/mess areas.
Food stored around the boat
Different meals "cooking" in pots in galley
debris such as stacked dirty plates, ash-trays, mops, buckets, books, and other miscellaneous similar objects. Ability for players to set their avatars appearance of age, build, facial hair, clothing etc could also be a part of this.
Different dispositions of these objects could create a little difference between 1 boat and another.
This could also be varied over time, as well, so that not only would there be different objects scattered around in different boats, but over time (multiple play sessions) the objects present on any given boat would slowly change over time, creating the impression of a boat with a larger crew aboard, and a more dynamic environment where things change in appearance over time as well as between boats. But not so much that you can't distinguish one boat from another internally.
Obviously not a high priority, relative to other features, but it'd be nice to have one day.
142. Battery-heating after full charge?
This is surmise on my part. In theory, there'd be some form of battery protection that cracked in once you'd reached a little above 9.3Kah, in order to prevent over-charging, with the rate of recharge affecting how quickly this protection - howsoever arranged - came on.
This has implications for a current technique whereby when matching a convoy speed, the e-motor is put "on charge" and then the exact required rpm is maintained watching the e-motor shaft rpm gauge, and moderated using the e-motor speed controller.
So, either a battery temperature gauge, (with it tripping on reaching a max temp) or, the battery "tripping" a rate-dependant trip, would seem to me to be a worthwhile addition. The problem is, I don't know precisely how this aspect was actually handled. Perhaps Stosstrup or Decaf' could comment? The latter is my preferred solution, as it would allow the emotor moderated system for matching convoy speeds, but perhaps not for extended periods?
derstosstrupp
04-14-24, 08:31 PM
142. Battery-heating after full charge?
This is surmise on my part. In theory, there'd be some form of battery protection that cracked in once you'd reached a little above 9.3Kah, in order to prevent over-charging, with the rate of recharge affecting how quickly this protection - howsoever arranged - came on.
This has implications for a current technique whereby when matching a convoy speed, the e-motor is put "on charge" and then the exact required rpm is maintained watching the e-motor shaft rpm gauge, and moderated using the e-motor speed controller.
So, either a battery temperature gauge, (with it tripping on reaching a max temp) or, the battery "tripping" a rate-dependant trip, would seem to me to be a worthwhile addition. The problem is, I don't know precisely how this aspect was actually handled. Perhaps Stosstrup or Decaf' could comment? The latter is my preferred solution, as it would allow the emotor moderated system for matching convoy speeds, but perhaps not for extended periods?
Hi Fidd,
The charging of the batteries followed the same three phase principles by which lead acid batteries are charged even today. Charging began with a high voltage charge at a high level of current to deliver a high level of power (kW hours) to the cells, until the cell voltage reached roughly 2.4 V, or 149 V per bank. This is known as the so-called “gassing voltage”, above which electrolysis of water occurs and formation of hydrogen gas, high heat and the boiling off of the water in the electrolyte can occur in large amounts. And so at this point during the charge, the charging current is gradually tapered off (the “second phase”) while maintaining a bank voltage of 149 V, until the current has been reduced to roughly 400 or so amps, at which point the charge is then stopped.
The above are the steps for typical daily charging. Once a week and once a month, you would perform an equalization charge, taking the charge into a third phase (constant current at 400 A or so) much longer to boost the bank voltage up to roughly 170 V, which ensures that A) a good part of the lead sulfate that has formed on the electrodes gets converted back into sulfuric acid, and B) it helps distribute, or “equalize”, the sulfuric acid in the electrolyte throughout the individual cells. Consequence of this type of charging of course is that you do end up with gassing, and a boiling off of water in the electrolyte. And so monthly, the distilled water would need to be replenished. A necessary evil - if not done, you end up with lead sulfate that can’t be removed, shortening the life of the cells unnecessarily.
And so the charge was purely a function of monitoring voltmeters and ensuring the proper procedure was performed. And monthly, adding an inspection of cells to measure electrolyte density and replenishment of the distilled water in the electrolyte. There were no battery temperature gauges, or anything of that nature, and these were not needed as long as the proper procedure was followed (electrolyte temperature was indeed measured by hand during monthly maintenance).
Many thanks Stosstrupp, as always a great pleasure to read some of your amazing knowledge. I am wondering, however, what you might regard as a sensible way of handling operating the engine in charge mode when the batteries are already at 9.3Kah?
derstosstrupp
04-14-24, 09:36 PM
Many thanks Stosstrupp, as always a great pleasure to read some of your amazing knowledge. I am wondering, however, what you might regard as a sensible way of handling operating the engine in charge mode when the batteries are already at 9.3Kah?
I think they should implement some manner of consequence, maybe in the form of gassing. Ventilation appears to be a consideration by them (we see them having implemented workable ventilation foot valves in the diesel room for instance). But it’s hard making any real suggestions at this point because the batteries aren’t modeled accurately at all. They are considered to be “electrolyte buckets” which is not how batteries work. For example, in real life, you could deeply discharge the batteries at AK over an hour, drop to a slow speed, and have another several hours left all of a sudden. That’s not how it works in Wolfpack - the chemistry that causes that phenomenon is not modeled. And so, since the consequence of bringing the batteries above their gassing voltage is also a chemical phenomenon, it’s hard to suggest something in this direction when the fundamental model is not correct.
But as a shortcut, stopgap, something along the lines of a risk of gassing if the ventilation system is not turned on when continuing a charge is not entirely far-fetched. But it is also silly in a way, because there’s no reason to continue a charge in the game. In real life, you prolong the charge monthly for the health of your battery cells. That’s not a consideration in the game. And so it would be purely punitive, which may not be the best for game design.
Many thanks, that's given me a lot to think about. I'll ruminate on all this for a few weeks and return to it.
143. Refuelling the "daily tank".
Once a day, as I understand it, the daily (overhead) tank in the engine room had to have fuel-oil pumped into it from the saddle-tanks. This could be assumed to be necessary at some point in each game as a one-off task for the engine room players. As the fuel oil in the saddle tanks was displaced by sea-water, this also necessarily changed the trim of the boat, so this task would also add some much needed extra work for the dive-officer, who would have to retrim the boat on the next dive after the fuel-transfer was made.
Ideally, perhaps, each game would start with a random amount of fuel remaining in the daily-tank, meaning that factoring in when this was done would be something for the captain/chief engineer to think about. Accelerated use of fuel from the daily tank would help in this regard, so that the full "daily tank" exhausts in circa 2.5 hours, meaning that in a 3 hour game, at some point, it'll need to be done. One could argue that this would be done prior to nearing the convoy, but as our "3 TOI games" are considered to be representing many hours, rather than just 3 it actually takes us, that it is therefore something that could be included as a game mechanic. It would also add considerable amusement value when the boat comes to a halt because one "ran out of gas"!
derstosstrupp
04-16-24, 07:09 PM
143. Refuelling the "daily tank".
Once a day, as I understand it, the daily (overhead) tank in the engine room had to have fuel-oil pumped into it from the saddle-tanks. This could be assumed to be necessary at some point in each game as a one-off task for the engine room players. As the fuel oil in the saddle tanks was displaced by sea-water, this also necessarily changed the trim of the boat, so this task would also add some much needed extra work for the dive-officer, who would have to retrim the boat on the next dive after the fuel-transfer was made.
Ideally, perhaps, each game would start with a random amount of fuel remaining in the daily-tank, meaning that factoring in when this was done would be something for the captain/chief engineer to think about. Accelerated use of fuel from the daily tank would help in this regard, so that the full "daily tank" exhausts in circa 2.5 hours, meaning that in a 3 hour game, at some point, it'll need to be done. One could argue that this would be done prior to nearing the convoy, but as our "3 TOI games" are considered to be representing many hours, rather than just 3 it actually takes us, that it is therefore something that could be included as a game mechanic. It would also add considerable amusement value when the boat comes to a halt because one "ran out of gas"!
Here is how that might look:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1f6VPFIcoMejKTu27ax6CiELg2OiadoZTWCi4XxoI6DI/edit
Here is how that might look:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1f6VPFIcoMejKTu27ax6CiELg2OiadoZTWCi4XxoI6DI/edit
That is perfect! Very interesting too. I shall cease calling is the daily tank forthwith!
144. Variable visibility over time
As a refinement of the fog system, it would be interesting if the visibility via the fog setting might vary over time - perhaps once or twice within a 3 hour game-play period, perhaps +/- 15% of the configured value at a rate of change not more than 1% per 5 minutes?
This would mean that rather than being able to rely on a given visibility (and therefore visual detection range) skippers would have to reassess visibility, and adjust their approaches.
A similar variation could be applied to wind-direction and strength. Ideally with fog greater than 8% (or thereabouts) only being able to form if windspeed was equal to or less than 5 kts. (above this value the mixing of air tends to create low stratiform cloud or mist, in both cases allowing greater visibility.
Similarly, to create high sea-states, wind-speed would need to be high, which in turn would completely preclude fog.
145. Damage to gauges.
Mindful of the proposed damage-model in #98, I'd like to see:
Pressure instruments: Depth gauges/trim-tank level/MBT water content/MBT pressure gauges etc.
1. Loss of back-lighting for light damage (reparable)
2. Rendered temporarily inoperable (needle fall off) with medium damage due DC's. (reparable, but takes longer)
3. Permanently inoperable, with broken glass, dislodged needle, loss of back-lighting.
Non pressure gauges All electric gauges, non-pressure gauges, EOT's etc
1. Rendered temporarily inoperable (needle fall off) with medium damage due DC's. (reparable)
2. Permanently inoperable, with broken glass, dislodged needle, loss of back-lighting.
Damage in all cases should be related to the nominal diameter of the gauge of indicator, with larger units more prone to taking damage. This will tend to leave back-up instrumentation intact. Loss of an EOT may result in a having to use verbal orders on the telephone/voice-tube or via a "runner". Usually simply acting according to the one surviving EOT command may work, unless several EOT's in the control room and e-motor/diesel room are broken. Note that in all cases that a gauge has taken damage is observable "by eye".
The general aim of allowing instrumentation to be damaged, is to complicate operation of the boat, so that either standby instrumentation has to be used, or instruments remote from the operator (eg. having to have depths/or 'plane positions etc) read off from an instrument in the tower, to the player below operating the 'planes). It will also serve to force the crew to think through the implications of damaged instrumentation, and who will need what information from where to counter the loss of primary gauges. The more gauges are broken throughout the boat, the greater the risks of diving too deep, or accidentally surfacing, or getting detected because a dive was not performed as it would ordinarily be, etc.
146. Loose and suspended objects.
A nice feature of SH3 were all the hanging hams and what-not which were hung above in the control-room, and which swayed gently with the roll and pitch of the boat, and which did so more vigorously when DC'd. It would be nice to see some of these performing the same "roll" (or falling?) in WP. Additionally, there might be loose objects such as a pile of tins, belongings from lockers, locker doors etc, which could spill about in rough seas or when DC'd, with attendant sound effects.
This would help create more of a local-earth vertical reference in the boat, as well as provide scope for more immersive experience of being in rough weather or subject to DC's. Personally I find the few "flashes", almost inaudible DC explosion sounds, and lack of camera-shake, to be particularly underwhelming when hit by nearby DC's. Adding pitching movement to the boat would also add to this. (as far as I'm aware our boats only roll)
147. Optional faster zig-rate.
It is my belief that convoy clocks were set to zig at a periodicity of circa 8 minutes, rather than (I gather) the 17 minutes we now have.
The difference is important. In the 17 minute scenario, there just is enough time to determine the convoy heading, speed and to fire and hit to a 15 minute TOI against a target which will maintain speed and heading.
Were the historical (8 min?) zig rate enabled (on an optional basis of course) then this attack profile would need to change completely, as now the mean-track and mean-speed would form the data for the TDC, making long range shots a bit more difficult, and a longer period of observations needed before firing. This in turn allows for more detection opportunities, especially if aircraft and/or radar arrive.
I suggest that zigs be limited to plus or minus 10-15 degrees of a base course, excepting after a hit on a merchantman or detection of a u-boat, whereafter the convoy can change by 30 degrees relative to the base course, with 15 degrees for the 2nd zig 8 minutes later, before reverting back to the original base course at a rate of 5, 10, 15 degrees per following 8 minute zig. Once back on the base course, the maximum zig would return to 15 degrees in either direction?
This optional change would greatly benefit navigators, as now they'd need to accurately plot the position of a boat at two recorded times, then derive the convoy speed from that. Similarly establishing the 1st and 2nd AOB's (and therefore headings) of the convoy, and the time they changed, to establish the mean-course.....
derstosstrupp
04-27-24, 07:23 AM
Where does the historical 8 minute figure come from? I was always of the understanding that large convoys zigged more to the tune of every half hour to an hour. Now, single ships on the other hand, yes, those zigzagged very aggressively. I would be extremely surprised at 8 minutes for a convoy, these are mostly merchant men, not trained in station keeping.
I believe I read an account of this where there was a picture of the 8 markers around the periphery which were used to synchronise movements of individual ships. I cannot recall the precise source, but it's hard to think this isn't well documented?
derstosstrupp
04-27-24, 05:04 PM
I believe I read an account of this where there was a picture of the 8 markers around the periphery which were used to synchronise movements of individual ships. I cannot recall the precise source, but it's hard to think this isn't well documented?
I know radio room clocks used on some surface ships have markings like that to denote key times during the radio watch or between them, but eight minutes is far too short for zigs. I only have heard a half hour to an hour or so. It’s a recipe for disaster to expect merchant mariners to execute this every eight minutes. Even a crew trained in station keeping would be exhausted having to do this that frequently.
I would suspect that it was only used when under fire, or when the "warnings of the numbers of u-boats in your area" warranted it. Once per half hour would provide little or no protection via ruining torpedo solutions, and would only serve to increase the track miles of the convoy.
derstosstrupp
04-27-24, 08:38 PM
I would suspect that it was only used when under fire, or when the "warnings of the numbers of u-boats in your area" warranted it. Once per half hour would provide little or no protection via ruining torpedo solutions, and would only serve to increase the track miles of the convoy.
The idea wasn’t to foil solutions, it was to make tracking the convoy by a shadowing U-boat difficult. If you recall, a U-boat (typically the first to sight it) was designated the “contact holder” and could not attack until BdU knew he had sufficient boats in contact. That took many many hours. It needed to provide contact reports at intervals and often they lost contact because they could not follow the convoy’s movements effectively or were driven off by roving escorts. The zigzag patterns would typically be very complex, making it difficult to predict the base course and assemble boats effectively. That was the whole idea. Again, you can’t expect a glorified gaggle of civilian ships to execute the precision needed at 8-minute intervals without collisions happening (they happened as it was even with infrequent zigs). Nor did it happen for that reason in danger areas of U-boats. A recipe for loss of coordination and scattering. And unlike in Wolfpack, in real life the scatter meant absolute failure of the convoy commander and easy pickings for U-boats.
I don't doubt the veracity of what you're saying, but from what I've seen - an image of a merchantman clock with the periphery marked for when zigs should be made; it makes we wonder if we're both right, namely that there were short-interval zigs to make solutions more difficult when under fire, and longer interval ones designed to frustrate establishing the convoy's base course, as you describe.
In other words, we may both be right.
148. DF-ing using civilian radio-stations/DFing u-boats
This was a common technique, especially on long-wave, to establish the bearing to and from civilian transmitters known location, and therefore with a cross-cut bearing, to determine position deep into the Atlantic. If one assumes that the location of the u-boat was unknown to the crew initially, this might make for some interesting navigational use of DF's to fix their position. The more lines established, the more accurate the fix, and therefore the more accurate subsequent navigation to the convoy becomes. (assuming some form of time-compression to keep "time to target" roughly comparable to now)
With the multi-national player-base, it ought to be possible to create plausible sounding radio transmissions of stations in the UK, Germany, France and the low-countries, to which a radio-officer can tune the DF equipment to start DFing.
The allied counter to this is the use of DFing locations - spread from Iceland to the Azores, to fix the area of u-boats whenever they transmit. On a strategic level this has little bearing (if you'll excuse the pun) on the game, however, it could be used the more radio-traffic is sent between boats in game, to send detached escorts down a bearing to search for a surfaced or thence submerged u-boat. By counting the characters, or duration of morse signals sent, from a particular u-boat during the course of a game, a tipping-point might be reached causing such a detachment of an escort. Or aircraft.
DFing therefore could be engineered in game to both assist u-boat crews in locating a convoy and establishing their own position - or the position of other u-boats, but ALSO via the brevity, or otherwise, of radio transmissions from it, to cause AI or PVP escorts to be able to detach from their usual positions.....
149. Refinement of AI escorts in determining likely position of an attacking u-boat from torpedo wakes.
If the attacked merchantman is sunk within a short period of being hit, all the escorts should be aware of is the 180 degree arc "side" that the torpedo has come from, and therefore those escorts on that side should turn outwards from that side, and commence asdic and hydrophone searches. However, as the distance from which the torpedo is fired is unknown, the distance outwards they travel is fairly short.
If the merchantman is hit but does not sink quickly, it is assumed that the approximate track of a steam inbound torpedo is known to the crew, and this information is given to the escorts via short-wave radio or other signal, and the AI escort then proceeds along the reciprocal of that track, for a reasonable distance, likewise at asdic and hydrophone speed.
Similarly, if the track of a steam torpedo is seen passing an un-hit merchantman, the same reasonable distance is covered by the outbound pinging/listening escort, however, with a less certain bearing, so there should be a random error in bearing to course travelled.
If the u-boat is physically spotted, the AI escorts would travel directly at best speed to the area, for perhaps 90% of the distance, and only then conduct asdic and hydrophone searches, firing guns at the u-boat so long as it or the periscope is in view, possibly with star-shells.
So, firing electrics, will result in poor ability by the escorts to locate a u-boat, provided it remains quiet and achieves sinking hits. On the other hand, if it fires and misses with steams, or hits but does not outright sink, a merchantment, then the ability of the escorts to determine the location of the u-boat improves. Finally, if the u-boat is visually seen, then it's in for a world of hurt, possibly with several escorts coming for it at up to 36 knots....
150. Fixing damage - personal expertise
Any damage that is fixable, should take x time to do so. This could be modified by the players expertise in the associated systems. So players total time in game - as known from Steam could be one variable, their role on the boat when fixing an associated system another. So, a long-standing player, who is a Dive-Officer, would fix a class 2 damage (see link below) of a depth gauge, faster than a new player who is a radio operator... The captain would have no ability to fix anything. His job being to put the right people attending to the right problem, and prioritising it.
The more players put on a single problem to fix, the quicker that problem is fixed. All fixable problems (classes 2 and 4) would automatically fix themselves, but very slowly, representing the efforts of the remainder of the crew. A crewman attempting to fix a class 1 or 3 problem, would be told (via a mechanism that informs him alone) after 150(?) seconds that the fault or damage is irreparable. He would then communicate that to the captain.
Whilst a player is fixing a problem, he is unable to move or operate any other control, nor is he able to interrupt the process. If he does, then whatever fixing he has achieved is zeroed unless another player is helping, where-after it continues at a slower rate. The point of this is to increase the need for players to run additional stations to their own when damage-control parties are at work.
Each time a player fixes a fault, their general expertise rises - and with it the diminishment of the time taken for future repairs.
https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2896723&postcount=116
151. Beards.
Each mission you survive, your avatar very gradually goes from clean-shaven, to fully bearded over 40 games or so. Every time you're killed during a game, back to being clean-shaven you go!
Amusingly, since posting this and mentioning this particular "silly" idea, this one really seems to have caught player's imagination, and I've had universally positive feedback on it!
152. "Pencil" or ability to point finger at instruments/controls.
It would be useful, when teaching or watching a new player, if there was the ability for a player to point to a specific instrument using a pencil or a pointed-finger, in such a way that the person under instruction can clearly tell to which instrument you are directing his attention to. It's sort of doable with the torch, but that usually covers several instruments or controls. This comes I think into the category of "nice to have but not essential"?
In both cases, the finger or pencil should be directed to the centre screen white dot, and for a 3rd person viewer, be pointed directly at the same instrument.
153. In order to add some realism to the re-charging process, and to replicate, to a point, the actual methods employed, as well as provide some much needed extra tasks for the engine room crew, I suggest:
That recharge rates be staggered:
0-6Kah half-speed 340 rpm, 700A parallel/parallel
6-8.5ka half-speed 340 rpm, 400A parallel/parallel
8-9.3kah half-speed 340 rpm, 200A parallel/parallel
9.3kah and above 0A
If the amperage is exceeded, the battery eventually begins to vent hydrogen, requiring ventilation of the boat. The hydrogen level is simply rendered as a % report in text. If a given value is reached, the boat is lost. ? The risk of this can be mitigated by using the appropriate charging regime, and ceasing recharging at 9.3kah; also keeping the air intake and exhaust hull-valves open, and of course the main-hatch.
This will add to the complexity of recharging, and to the need for careful management of recharge rates, as well of other techniques (such as using the e-motor in recharge to moderate shaft rpm when convoy speed matching).
By having a requirement for variable-rate recharging, and a severe penalty for allowing the batteries to vent hydrogen in excess, it will require more "thinking ahead" by both captain and engineers/machinists to ensure the boat is well recharged - and ventilated - for when it is needed. Additionally by having the main-hatch more routinely open, it allows for some extra complexity for the dive-officer and others.
I suggest that "hydrogen danger" be a configurable setting for the lobby. By making the % of hydrogen a simple text report, citing the value, minimal extra coding would be required, other than tying the recharge rate in amps to the rate at which hydrogen gassing occurs. The suggested figures are fairly arbitrary, the point is there should be a system whereby the charging regime has to change the nearer one gets to 9.3kah, and the rate of charge must diminish within certain limits, as the overall Kah rises?
154. Double-ranked escorts
As the war progressed, circa 1942 onwards, the availability of corvettes. sloops and destroyers improved to the point where escorts could be placed in two concentric circles around the convoy. The inner one consisted of corvettes, and the outer one usually of destroyers and sloops (Tribals and Bitterns). The latter were preferentially sent out to attack located U-boats, either reported positions from aircraft, HFDF bearings or visually seen, or detected by radar. These ships would range out to about 25nm (circa 50 or so km), because they could recover to the convoy at a good speed.
During the day, the function of the outer screen was to frustrate the efforts of U-boats to accelerate past the convoy at a range where they could remain - just about - in visual range of the convoy, and so help prevent their being able to overtake and prosecute a night time attack later.
During the night, dependant on the ranges from the convoy, a U-boat would have to penetrate at least the outer screen, and possibly also the inner screen, in order to have a reasonable prospect of hitting targets. That suggests to me that the inner screen of corvettes was about 1200m distant from the nearest merchant, and the outer screen was circa 3.5km to 5km distant. (A 5km shot would be considered a pretty long low percentage shot at the time.) It was the advent of these double screens that impelled the development of the Lut I and Lut II torpedoes (for which we will need changes to our current TDC) and the acoustic "zaukoenig" (?) types. The latter were swiftly rendered useless to attack destroyers by the use of "Foxer", (essentially a towed clapper that attracted the acoustic torpedo) although I can imagine the latter were not popular with hydrophone operators!
As we move to the type VIIC/41, and from 1941 into later years, it is I think worthwhile considering having some, or most, or all, convoys protected by an inner and outer escort screen. This is I think crucial to being able to extend the difficulty level of play, and variety of game experience and outcome, for experienced players, so that over-repetition and burnout is avoided. Player retention being very nearly as important as acquiring new players?
155. 3 axis movement and wave/swell action.
I am not particularly nautically minded, so feel free to differ, but it seems to me that whilst we have roll and yaw about the longitudinal and normal (vertical) vertices, we do not have any noticeable pitch for either wave action, or that of a swell.
This is greatly needed, as they confer the ability to do all sorts of things:
It makes maintaining periscope depth more problematic, as any pitch of the boat inclines or depresses the thrust-line of the prop, making depth keeping more dynamically unstable. The action of a swell is less to cause a pitch-change of the boat, but is going to cause the boat to rise and fall relative to the horizon. This would make ranging more difficult.
The ability to have major pitch changes would allow for more dynamic instability of the boat, if, for example, the bow is lifted relative to the stern by a DC going off under it. Sliding loose objects, objects falling out of lockers would be a nice touch here?
Some means of steadying the avatar to some degree would be helpful, especially in the engine room, where the ability to brace oneself to tune a flame would be most welcome!
If vertical control of a u-boat is degraded or lost - perhaps by an unequal distribution of weight, of DC attacks, then the ability of the u-boat to take on a steep pitch change could lead to the need for large changes of trim, of power, of 'planes to arrest an unwanted ascent of decent? It raises the spectre of completely losing control, and having difficulty regaining it before crush depth, or inadvertently surfacing!
There's a lot of atmospheric external sound that could be added, from the "slap" of the hydroplanes hitting the water if the boat pitches down onto the back of a wave, the creak of the u-boat's structure and so forth, in rough weather. Bots and players could be caused to sway and move in concert with the wave/swell action?
3 axis movement does have draw-backs, for example it may cause sea-sickness, seeing one movement but experiencing no movement, so probably best to make this a lobby, or a personal setting??
In sum though, I think there's a great deal of positives in helping to graduate the game experience from simple to really hard, which is needed to help prevent burnout and with player retention.
156. Audible pings not necessarily being detections.
Asdic pings hitting a u-boat, (as heard from within) have been described as akin to "gravel hitting the hull". I take this to mean that rather than hearing a clear-ping and echo, as an asdic operator would hear, the sound was "muddled" and prolonged slightly. I would like to see a transition from this sound becoming increasingly clear and distinct the closer the asdic-equipped escort got to the u-boat. The point of this is to remove the certainty of precisely when a u-boat is detected on asdic. Instead, perhaps, if the hydrophone operator on the u-boat is listening to that escort, he will hear the acceleration and have a short interval to report this before splashes (7-20 seconds?). As the escort comes overhead, it's props should be audible within the u-boat, but, "splashes" would only be audible on the hydrophones.
These changes would mean the hydrophone use on the u-boat would become more important in terms of the timing of going full ahead to escape being hit by DC's, rather than it simply being a case of anyone on the boat hearing "pings on the hull" and therefore knowing when to take measures to escape a DC attack. As a another wrinkle, the ability to hear "splashes" on the hydrophone in the first place could be made conditional on the e-motor being set to silent running?
157. Lobby setting whereby sensors/optics/hatches can be rendered inoperable for a period of time, and/or, until certain actions/data entry are performed.
On the face of it, this is a peculiar one. However, if one imagines that the following are inoperable at the beginning of a (non quick start) game:
Hydrophones
Periscopes
Top-hatch
An Enigma message is then sent, decryption of which gives the location of the convoy, and a four letter suffix to the message. The captain then enters the suffix with a "dot command" in the text buffer. This starts a timer for 7 minutes, at the end of which the hydrophones become usable. Once a strong acoustic signal is detected, this starts a 3 minute timer, which then unlocks the ability to operate the optics and the top-hatch.
Why do this?:
This would compel the crew to decrypt an Enigma signal, ascertain the 4 letter letter suffix and enter it. In the meantime the Navigator can plot the position and reported speed of the convoy, project a line from that position the distance at that speed by the interval between the time now, and the time of the report, then lay off a course to intercept, which the boat would then execute. This gives content to both navigator AND radio operator and an Enigma operator (who may be another member of the crew). The crew then dive, using the now available hydrophone, get the strong signal, and 3 minutes later they can now see the convoy with optics, if it is visible.
This mechanism would force spawnage to the front or sides of the convoy, and the distance of spawning would also be organised in such a way that accidental detection could not occur provided the decryption was done in a timely fashion. It would allow for location of the convoy using ill-used components of the game (Enigma and Navigational plotting) to be used, whilst not being unduly time consuming.
158. UI improvement in "bunker".
On some organised games, the registration process via that Flotilla's process does not involve signing up for a particular boat and a particular role. There's normally a fairly prolonged shambles of getting the assembled players into crews on different boats. This process would be helped by the addition of three icons/three letter groups adjacent to the name and icon of the attending players:
1. A "traffic light" indicator of red/green, where red denotes "not yet accepted by a captain" (and therefore available to be asked to crew any boat)
2. A desired role indicator 3 letter group, eg "HEL", "DIV", "RAD", etc, or "ANY" etc. Any or all players can indicate therefore what they'd like to do.
3. A boat number three numeral group, eg "U96". As players are accepted by captains, this would shew which player is where.
The sum of these changes would give those organising such games better information concerning who wishes to play what role, whether they have been accepted on a boat, and which boat they are on. Crucially, it would make plain who has not yet been taken on by a captain and what role they would ideally do. By limiting the characters to 3 on both fields, it limits the scope for this feature being abused to write, for example, 4 letter words! It might be sensible to have a ranking option, whereby one can order the list of players by "not yet accepted by a captain" or "by desired role"?
One could argue, that Flotilla leaders should simply tighten their sign-up procedures to allow players to specify the role they wish at sign-up on discord, but I suspect that some games prefer the flexibility of not doing so, at which point, these changes would be really helpful?
159. Manoeuvring through minefields.
A possible treatment of this. Self-evidently, blundering into a mine with no warning, and the game instantaneously ending (without even a large bang) is sub-optimal. Accordingly I propose that mine cables graunching and scraping against the hull be indicative of having entered a minefield, and that there be some scope for manoeuvring to free a mine snagged on the u-boat if prompt action is taken to slow/stop/reverse the boat and/or exercise the 'planes is taken.
There must be some scope for the instant no-warning mine kill, but this should be made as rare as humanly possible; instead using the noisy snagged/scraping mine cable to drag the mine down to the u-boat to detonate on contact. This would make entry as speed into the minefield risky, as would be penetrating it on the surface or at a shallow depth. There was a finite depth at which tethered mines could be deployed, in the order of 160m (for the anchor-weight).
160. Thought on manual reloading of torpedoes:
Reloading should be:
Realistic
Quick
Manual
Quick is obviously faster than realistic, and manual should be quicker than quick - if well handled - or slower, if incompetently done. It should be much easier if prosecuted at depth - less easy in a sea-state above flat calm. Ideally not just the expertise, but the number of players involved should make a difference to the time to reload, in order to get "spare" players moving around the boat to aid each other which is no bad thing. Ideally all the manipulation of bow caps, purging the water from the tube, opening rear door, lifting and lining up the reload etc etc should be modelled.
As stated elsewhere, it'd be useful if the deck-plates were segmented, as I simply cannot believe 10m long 6mm steel deck-plates were lifted in one go to access the underfloor torpedo stowage. If anyone is able to furnish photographs shewing the underfloor torpedo stowage exposed, that'd be interesting to see. (Same applies to battery compartments).
For the aft torpedo reloads, it'd be nice if the engine room crew were left to prosecute the reload, as there are currently long periods of inactivity. Likewise, if ever manual setting of the gyro angle comes in, and possible manual firing on verbal order, again, it'd be good if this was left to the machinists/engineer for much the same reasons?
161. Use of "spare players" as ballast.
In order to simulate the movement of crew to move the C of G of the boat to the bow, and therefore to steepen a dive angle, it might be fun if each player crewmember moving to the forward torpedo room was represented by the addition of the weight of (say) 5-10 crew, so that non-essential players rushing thereto could make a crash dive to depth quicker. Of course if they ran forward when only a dive to PD was required, then..... Use of the alarm-bell might be used as the signal as to whether or not the rush was required, and likely the dive-safe panel going all lit should be the cue so to do?
162. Anachronism correction: All of our placards, for example "speed controller" appear to be embossed plastic or metal from the rear, as with Dymo tape. Dymo tape did not exist until 1958. If the placards are of the "punched" type - as is the case on a modern car's VIN plate, then they should not appear to be embossed from the rear, but punched from the front!
It would be nice to have the chance to opt for German language placarding/dials (with English or other language on mouse-hover) if these placards are corrected.
163. Does the Hun play "darts"?
If so, might the Engineer and machinists have an automatically-scoring dart-board, and black-board (for displaying score) on the back of the emotor room door; and throwable "darts", for those very long submerged periods at dead-slow? If you add the comedy-effect of a dart stuck in the captain's nose if the door is opened at an inopportune moment, all to the good!
(somewhat tongue in cheek)
164. Reworking of rudder-authority/engine or emotor asymmetry?
Currently, of you'll pardon the pun, once the u-boat is submerged, but also to a degree when on the diesels, there's quite prolonged periods where there's little to do in the diesel/emotor room.
One reason for this, is unlike any footage I've ever seen of submarines we always and only ever use the rudder to change the boat's heading. Instead of the use of asymmetric power on the diesels or e-motor in addition to, or in place of, (especially at low speeds) the rudder.
It seems to me therefore that reducing rudder authority a little, and relating it's authority to the speed/being submerged etc, may be helpful in creating the situation where asymmetric power is needed to perform reasonably swift turns. This would provide a continuous extra workload for the helm, or at least an additional skill to learn for the captain and helm to learn, as well as a greater workload for the engine room when manoeuvring, which I think would be most welcome! As both stations can be a bit dull on occasion, this would help, and of course it would not unduly affect solo players with bots. It might even be possible to have the commanded rudder position cause the engine room bots to reduce the power-setting by 1 value on the engine to the same side of the rudder displacement, if auto-engines are on..?
There are accounts of surfaced-uboats being much more manoeuvreable than destroyers, and this might also allow for this to me more the case...?
165. Opening/closing submarine nets - entering anchorages.
If I've understood it correctly, the devs are currently working towards adding shorelines, so it may become possible to penetrate ports or operate in constricted waters. Such facilities were usually protected by torpedo-net/boom, as well as mines. This potentially provides scope for a u-boat to attempt to penetrate a submarine-net. This was most often done by following a surface ship through a gap opened by another surface (tug?) temporarily. In order to for our u-boat to penetrate such a net, bearings would need to be taken of ships the position of the gap when opened, and/or to follow a ship through a gap as it opens. These nets could be forced by repeatedly running into them at speed, although this attracted attention owing to movement of the boom above.
This provides lots of scope for the navigator to do submerged navigation. Both to pass through or around minefields, and to locate and enter through the gap. Significant features on land (light-houses etc) could be used to accurately position the u-boat but might run the risk of the AP being detected? Very limited underwater visibility through the OP, might allow for mines to be manoeuvred around too?
Such games probably ought to be capped at single boat spawnable?
166. Improvement to later war hedgehog.
Early forms of hedgehog were simply bolted to the deck, meaning that if the escort was heeled to (say) starboard at the moment of firing, the bombs would tend to hit the sea outboard and right of the targets position. This gives some scope for the u-boat to manoeuvre to cause this to happen with a reversal of turn. Although a lot of hedgehogs were fitted, they were not used operationally much until the Admiralty started requiring captains to account for why they were not being used. This occurred in '43, but I'm unaware of the month.
Later in the war, a gyroscopically motorised mount was used which caused the mount to remain "local vertical" despite a list, which greatly improved accuracy.
This should probably be reflected in the accuracy of AI escorts employing hedgehog, so that they're more accurate when there's no list?
167. Post game reveal of each course adopted by convoy, and speed, sequentially, between alerts.
This idea came from Muttley, who wants this feature as a means of discovering why torpedoes miss, if it occurs. As it's theoretically much easier to code than a full game-replay system, it's worth thinking about, if indeed it's straight-forward?
168. Itemised date-sensitive u-boat and escort additions.
There's a great deal of kit that could vary with the date, (known entry to service dates) for both escorts, and uboats. It occurs to me that as the date is advanced in the lobby setting, then the person setting the lobby should see a list of what new kit the u-boat and escorts are equipped with for that date. Ideally only the uboat equipment should be shewn to u-boat crews, and escort kit only to escort players (when implemented) and the owner of the lobby. This would allow for content where players may be surprised to discover aircraft equipped with radar, or escorts ditto.
There should also be some form of check-box system whereby a lobby owner can elect to include, or exclude, any date-sensitive kit despite the nominal date allowing for those items being on a u-boat or escort.
Possible inclusions might be: Sound-following torpedoes, the various FaT and Lut torpedoes, a more highly armed "band-stand" vis Flak weapons, Naxos and Metox radar-recievers, Albericht anechoic tiles, more powerful engines, and for the escorts: Radar, hedge-hog, Squid, Mousetrap, improved asdic with depth reading capability. Aircraft (Wellingtons?) with Leigh-lights for night-time attacks. Ju88's to clear out enemy anti-submarine aircraft. Escort carriers. I've probably left some stuff out worthy of inclusion.
So, the game would become one where selecting a given date would allow for both escorts and uboats to employ all this kit, subject to that kit being widely in service on that date. Or, the lobby owner could elect to get rid of things such as radar if desired. If using the elective extra difficulty idea (#93) then this would allow the captain to redeem points so gained to gain access to extra kit a calendar-month ahead of the nominal entry to service-date. This might allow for situations in a multi-boat game, where only one - or some - of the u-boats has a radar receiver on a certain date, meaning the others have no warning of aircraft or escort employing radar. So the boat with Metox, for example, would have the warn the others. Canned text on the mission-orders might also be used to tell the crew of suspected enemy improvements, or new kit on the u-boat...
See also #47 and #93
169. Changes and additions to log-book entries (see also #70, #77, #85)
1. The log-book should be in pen and ink cursive (hand-writing). Logs were not type-written in this period.
2. Additions to log book. A ".toi 22:15" command entered by the captain should add the phrase TOI 22:15:00" in the loo-book at that instant to every log of every boat currently spawned, regardless of whether they are surfaced, when the times is 22:15.00. Note the TOI still needs to be disseminated ahead of time in the normal way.
3. Torpedo launch times should be rendered in seconds as well as minutes and hours. EG "Torpedo 1 launched at 22:13.12" for the players boat, and EG "(U564 Torpedo launch 22:13.06)" for other boats. Note parentheses. This would allow all logs to be used to see which boat launched when.
4. Torpedo hit times, as above with entries for torpedo hits of other boats likewise in parentheses to show which boat hits before, or after a TOI.
5. Ability to suppress other boats hits an launch times. This is important as screen-shots are often posted on discord to log performances in games.
6. Generation of a rich-text log, as an alternative means of recording, to provide a tool for debriefs.
7. A u-boat being sunk adds a log-book entry to that effect.
8. "Submerged" and "Surfaced" added automatically to the log-book, for that u-boat only. (Added for ALL boats to all rich text log)
9. Ability to type short comments by the captain into log. Eg "Bloody Fidd CE blew both breakers and a cyl again!"
10. Record the tonnage of each ship sunk (in parentheses for other boats), with the latter suppressible in results voa check-box
11. Combination of the radio-log into the main log-book when using simple radio.
(I may add to this in future)
170. 2nd headset in hydrophone station.
There's a 2nd headset on the wall in the hydrophone station. Any player not at the hydrophone station should be able to click on that to put it on, and thereafter be able to hear the same as the hydrophone sounds as well, whilst also allowing conversation between the two. This would allow (say) the captain to be shewn the bearing of the signal but also allow for the hydrophone operator to explain what they can hear on a given bearing to the captain.
171. Leaking hatches.
I think there should be an intermediate stage between a hatch being opened, and therefore causing extensive flooding, and it being closed, and watertight. So, after a near miss by a DC, this might cause a hatch (or other halve valve) to leak slowly - a trickle of water and/or considerable and fast drops. The effect of this would be to very slowly cause the bilge to fill, eventually causing slight trim changes for the dive officer, but not so fast that it causes other problems such as flooding the diesels immediately, in the way an open exhaust hull-valve does. The flooding rate would be proportional to depth. If, for example, an exhaust hull valve were damaged, it would eventually flood the diesels to the point that they need clearing, but this might be avoided if depth were reduced.
This would be somewhat "atmospheric", but would cause some low-level problems for the crew if remaining at prolonged depth with such damage. Hatches not currently operable - eg the two torpedo loading hatches - could be affected. Damage/leaks from such hatches/valves could reset by surfacing? Or it might remain for the remainder of the game?
172. Game "remembers and applies previously used filter settings for lobbies"
It's only a few clicks, but I do find this a little irritating to have to change every single time I log in for an organised game.... If the game "remembered" the previously used filter settings, I think that'd be useful? Not a high priority at all, but were it a simple fix, it'd be pretty welcome? Either that, or make the default setting show all games, ie filters OFF?
173. Moon-paths affecting detection ranges.
If "up-moon" the normal detection ranges are greatly increased, as the u-boat is silhouetted against the well lit sea. As soon as it moves out of the thin strip of illuminated sea, it drops rapidly to normal. Say to 3000m to 2200m or so. On the "down-moon" side, the detection range is slightly increased by (say) 300m as the extra illumination of the u-boat likely is governed by the inverse square law. (Brighter mathmaticians can sort out the physics)
This would mean captains would have to start taking into account the moon's position, and zenith/nadir when approaching the convoy or closing for an attack...
174. "Better deaths"
Currently the game just stops when a lethal-hit is suffered, be it by DC or gunfire. This seems a complete anti-climax from the action preceding it.
Suppose the death of the boat was more "fuzzy". What I mean by this is that one wouldn't necessarily be immediately aware that a fatal hit had occurred, but rather, were faced with a series of cascading problems. Prior to the lethal hit, the crew might be able to remedy these (see #98), but after the lethal hit, they'd be of an extent, and rapidity of occurrence, that damage control was no longer feasible. An effort to reach the surface and end up in a dingy might be possible, with some crew-members living, but most not.
Post-lethal hit (in order):
Unstoppable flooding
Chlorine from batteries (once bilge is full), coughing, need for respirators.
Electrical failures
Loss of pitch and roll control (boat takes on a list and bow high or low
attitude)
Water level remains flat to local-earth vertical, meaning that if the bow is
low, the water level is higher towards the bow until it begins to seep
through closed hatches, or pour through, open ones.
Uncontrollable descent to crush depth.
Rising water level internally, movement causes splashing sounds as if walking
in 3 feet or so of water. Water rises to 5 feet above lower deck level, leaving player struggling to breathe ..fade to black with screams etc.
As the interface between alive and dead is made less distinct, there will be a short period of "hope" where the crew may believe - and try - to save the boat employing damage-control, and then a realisation that it is going to be lost, at which point, attempting to surface is the only possible way of remaining alive - albeit adrift. Only very rarely will this work. The idea is to derive some dramatic - and "realistic" content from the process of the boat being lost, rather than simply an end-screen... This is not unrelated to the need for DC attacks to be (a lot less lethal) but much more sustained, both in terms of asdic searches and DC attacks, with no "safety" at 185m. The point being that the one thing that typifies the drama of fighting in a uboat is currently missing?
175. 12 (internal stowage) +2 torpedoes (external stowage) =need to reload the external two reloads through the external torpedo stowage, with some form of mini-game involved to locate the torpedo through the hatch(es?). I can't now remember whether those external reloads fed the forward tubes of aft tube. Anyone have info on that?
derstosstrupp
08-01-24, 04:58 AM
One external was under the forward deck, one under the aft deck.
One external was under the forward deck, one under the aft deck.
175, (cont'd) Well that's easy then, 1 forward 1 aft. I'm thinking it should be a 7-12 minute process, with a further normal reload time, if put in the tube directly, or another 4 minutes if it's stowed in the underfloor torpedo stowage? Ideally it should require some 1-2 players out on the casing to get the torpedo from the deck to the inside of the boat, precluding diving, use of the deck-gun etc? There must have been some sort of jib to lift and manoeuvre the torpedoes?
Thanks for sharing your incredible knowledge once again!
derstosstrupp
08-02-24, 05:17 AM
Correct yes there was a portable crane that mounted on the deck in order to carry out the procedure. The only indication I have of how long it took in real life is from Brennecke’s “Jäger, Gejagte”, where he reports it took Merten’s boat U-68 50 minutes from the time the order was given to bring down an external torpedo til the breech door of the tube was closed. It was a lengthy process. At least in a pinch they could dive - the boat remained rigged for dive as long as the torpedo loading hatch was closed. They could sacrifice the crane and torpedo in other words.
From a gameplay perspective though yes, should be a shortened process.
176. Inconstant draft as a difficulty setting.
The draft of a ship changes with the degree to which it is loaded. East-bound ships tended to sit lower in the water than when west-bound. Goods were carried west-bound - often whisky - to help pay for the ammunition/tanks/guns/aircraft carried as cargo.
It might be a nice tough if the heading of the convoy also caused changes, specifically increased draft, for east-bound convoys, by way of a lobby-setting?
177. Loadout preferences kept game to game (and lobby set-ups generally)
It would be useful, I think, for a single button operable by a captain to set his saved torpedo loadout parameters, ie type on which tube, speed, fusing etc, as well as the set-up for the basic lobby, allowing for further changes to be made as required.
This would save a lot of time every time a game is set-up.
178. Alarm bells audible through speakers in engine room and e-motor room voice tubes?
This is an alternative to the distinct UI sound interface for the diesel and e-motor room. I still think we badly need that, but in the interim, having the alarm bells audible from the speaker above and behind the diesel controls, and through the voice-tubes, so that crucially the alarm bells are audible the length of the diesel-room, might involve less coding?
Currently there's no obvious indication as to whether a commanded dive is a crash dive, and when it is a normal dive. Knowing the difference would enable to e-motors to be put to full ahead in the case of the former.
179. Thoughts on radar.
Radar may be very tricky to implement in a fashion whereby players have an agreeable game, relative to pre-radar games, especially if AI driven escorts are determining that a radar-contact of a u-boat has been made. The reason being that a real human radar operator is looking for a contact amongst a whole clutter of false-returns, whereas an AI escort is simply determining it because the return is present, and isn't contending with the clutter.
A bit about radar. Because to "see" a return on the PPI, the radar energy has to get to and from the object reflecting it, In order to "edit out" the plethora of false returns from the sea-surface, there's always a "gain", however, if a gain is applied, then the overall effective range of the radar is reduced, especially when used in relation to a target with a low radar cross-section. Eg a periscope. Radar range is dependant on the square of the range, eg to double the range, one needs 4 times the power. Conversely, a radar warning receiver, such as Naxos or Metox, does have a linear capability, because to function, it only needs to detect radar energy, it doesn't have to make the "return trip" to the escort's radar receiver.
It follows from this that AI escorts need to use a non-linear radar, where small targets far away are very difficult to cause a "detection", but mid range ones of larger targets are much more likely to. As well as the inverse square law affecting radar range, there is also the matter of the radar head oscillating with sea-state, in pitch, roll and yaw. The effect of this is that at some times, a radar-return does not render on the PPI, because at the instant the radar-head crossed the path towards the object, the escort pitched/rolled or yawed in such a way as to misdirect the radar energy. Accordingly it should take several radar sweeps to be able to state with any certainty that there's no target out there. As the screen may be cluttered with false returns as well, picking out another intermittently presenting object within the noise of false returns becomes a highly skilled job. It's foreseeable that making the AI directed escorts function realistically, in terms of making a detection via radar, and it being roughly equal in ability to a player watching a PPI, could be very difficult indeed to code?
Early radars, pre 1950's, were infamously unreliable, until transistor circuits replaced valves and solid state ones. Finally, the height at which the radar head could be mounted, also has an effect both on the range at which a return can be identified amongst clutter can be made, as well as the amount of such clutter. Consequently, I'd expect Corvettes to be a poor platform for radar in all axes, with Biterns a little better, and Tribals better still, although in the case of both the latter, rolling would still be almost as poor as that of the Corvette. In low or flat calm sea-states, however, the radar would be considerably more effective. Both Metox and Naxos were effective versus ship-born radar, but both were very ineffective with aircraft-mounted centimetric radar (ASV). This was purely because for a long time the Germans were unable to ascertain the high frequencies of centimetric radar, and lacking the cavity magnetron, had no idea such high frequency radar was even practicable.
A final issue for radar detection is that if there's an intervening ship, there is in effect a radar-shadow behind it, in which a uboat may sit, invisible to radar even if surfaced. The presentation of the whole convoy on a radar-head sweeping it, should therefore also incorporate such shadows, meaning that the whole convoy cannot be seen.
In conclusion, I think it is likely ignoring implementing AI radar may be sensible, but instead requiring players to interpret returns on a PPI, with all the clutter and spurious returns/blank areas that that involves, so that it's an aid to being spotted by the Mk1 eyeball, but only exceeds that greatly in effectiveness in conditions capable of getting the best out of it. Ie flat-calm in fog, and not out the bleeding edges of it's nominal range. Similarly, the aspect of the u-boat relative to the radar energy should make a target more or less visible on radar, with a momentary use of a periscope virtually impossible to descriminate, but a prolonged period of being surfaced beam-on to the escort, much, much easier.
Lastly, I'm not a radar-expert, and it may be that early radars lacked a PPI at all (:ping: <-- PPI ) but this is my best estimate from what I do know about some foreseeable problems implementing it...
180. Non-digital detection ranges and alerts
Instead of our "get to 2001m (made-up figure) distance and you're safe" system of detection, followed by an alert if you're detected, suppose that the following occurred (distances arbitrary):
3000m you're completely safe from observation, and do not render for a manned escort's players to see you.
2000-3000m the longer you remain in this area surfaced, the more likely you will be to be seen. Your aspect to the viewer, fog modifier, speed, all affect the period before you're seen.
Under 2000m, you will be seen as soon as you enter surfaced, by AI watch, even if a player aboard a player operated escort fails to spot you.
The general principle here being that whilst you know you're safe from observation outside of 3km from the nearest allied ship, however it's the period in view, as well as the distance which determines if you're seen. Other modifiers could be applied such as being directly up, or down moon, and the level of brightness of the moon-light. With all these variables, captains could no longer close to short range completely certain that if they remain outside of x metres, that they cannot be seen. Likewise, as they render to player observers at 3000m (adjusted by fog modifier) they can be seen by them out to roughly that range. Consideration could be given to making u-boats transluscency to the observer, and the presence of spray particle effects proportional to the period that area of sea is under player observation. Meaning if you simply sweep you binos over an area, you'd be very unlikely to spot a u-boat unless it was close to.
A similar principle could be applied to periscopes, whereby the range affects detection, but also the duration it is above water. So, at say 2000m, you can keep it up continuously without risk of being detected, at 1500m, the duration limit might be circa 45 seconds before you're spotted, and at under 1500m, the duration becomes less and less. Again this could be further modified by the vertical extension of the periscope relative to the lowest level of waves, the type of periscope used, and the speed of the u-boat (creation of visible plume)
The intention of these changes would be to force captains to extend the AP as little as possible, for the shortest duration possible, when close to either merchants or escorts. It would make maintaining a specified depth more important for the dive officer too, and in higher speeds might mean that with the AP at a safe height, only intermittent viewing is possible when close to.
There's lots of ways and means by which detection ranges can be altered or finessed. No doubt others can come up with better ones. What I feel we need to move away from is the (remain outside this distance and you cannot be seen) to one where what you are doing, your aspect to a potential viewer and the ambient lighting, all make when and where you are detected a much more fuzzy issue.
181. Exponential voice attenuation with number of intervening closed hatches/doors to sound source, and ability to turn off the hydrophone operators voice tube (receive).
This one arises out of my first go operating the hydrophone. My hearing is fairly poor, but the need to establish the zero-signal point at which the gain value causes the sound of a ship is rendered all but impossible with people talking in the tower/control room. This occurs even if the control room voice-tube to the forward torpedo room is closed, and the intervening door and hatch between the hydrophone station and the control room are closed. The current implementation of sound attenuation in regard to using hydrophones is hopelessly poor, as either the entire boat has to remain silent to establish the "no signal gain value" OR, the attenuation due the number of closed intervening doors/hatches needs to become exponential; and the gain point to gauge range is changed back to the old "signal becomes over-modulated" point.
Whilst on the subject of sound, PLEASE can we make EOT bells in the diesel and engine room MUCH louder, likewise the diesel room telephone bell audible the length of the diesel room, or add a light visible whist "flaming" the engine. Ideally, I'd like to see a distinct UI for all sounds within the diesel and emotor room. The current sound system is in a hell of a mess - currently I can barely hear DC's exploding despite causing damage, and the EOT bells are likewise too quiet to be heard whilst on diesels! If one turns up either the master volume or the effects volume to the point where EOT bells can be heard, the noise of the diesels is shatteringly loud. One can argue that this is realistic, but it's not conducive to playing machinist or CE. We urgently need sound to be looked at again in several compartments, but especially in the hydrophone, diesel, and emotor room. Which might be a good argument for EVERY compartment to have it's own sliders for and sound one might hear in that compartment.
182. Additional atmospheric sounds that convey information:
There are a number of sounds which could be added, which could serve, especially in multi-boat games, to give players, or certain players, knowledge about the general situation. These might include:
1. Close by DC's. These should be the loudest sound on the u-boat bar none, and if close enough to include visual "camera shake" as per Das Boot.
2. Medium range - less than 10km distant - softly to clearly audible attenuated DC explosions. No directionality unless heard on hydrophones.
3. Long range DC explosions, 10-40 km range, only just barely audible on hydrophones if that bearing is swept as they detonate.
4. Sinking ships, collapsing bulkheads, boiler explosions, impact of wreck with sea-floor. Generally audible on the boat if under 8km, attenuated for range.
5. Louder noise of (all) engine beats of convoy. The convoy was clearly audible on boats within 15km or so, and is reported as such in many accounts. Noise proportional to convoy size, with frequency roughly proportional to speeed. Little directionality owing to properties of sound moving in water/human hearing. Good directionality if listened to via hydrophones.
6. Sounds of shipping or escorts above boat. No directionality, but volume related to distance from laterally and vertically. Beat of engine should confer some degree of confidence in type or ship, and it's speed in particular. Escorts prosecuting a DC attack become loud, typically, but not always, passing over the uboat - or near thereto - before "splashes". The latter ought not be audible except on hydrophones?
7. Torpedo detonations. Hard but possible to discriminate from DC's, but easy to do so via hydrophones. Ranges as per DC's. Close by torpedo-screw very audible though-out boat. Frequency and directionality with doppler. A "near miss" from another u-boat would become quite scary!
8. Mine cables. Known mine fields were usually navigated at dead slow on the emotor, and submerged. If possible they were crossed at depth to pass under the mines, however this had the risk of collecting a mine on part of the uboat and drawing it down upon the uboat unless it was shaken free. In the meantime the invigorating sound of hawsers scraping along the hull might be enjoyed, threatening instant oblivion. This provides some excellent opportunies for drama and content.
9. Aircraft. Subject to low wind values and calm sea-state, multi-engined aircraft, especially twins such as the Wellington and Catalina, could be heard at a considerable distance, provided the uboat's diesels were stopped. This was because keeping the prop rpm's synchronised was an endless task, any when the two came into the same phase, an extra loud engine/prop note (A cyclically wavering note was created) audible at 15 miles or so. This could conceivably be employed as a periodic "stop and listen" technique prior to the adoption of Metox and Naxos radar recievers (neither or which worked well). So, for example, if an aircraft is seen or suspected within 15 miles at night, this might allow for the uboat to dive prior to its arrival nearby, if there are crew to hear it, on the bridge, and if a listening watch is conducted. No immediate purpose to this, but it might have an application in the campaign game?
Internal noises.
10. Chain and tackle noises during reloading process, when moving torpedoes from under deck-plates. This process should be able to be paused, but has to be carried onto completion once commenced, before that torpedo becomes available to fire. Heard throughout the boat excepting in diesel room. Similar noises when bringing torpedoes in from exterior stowage.
11. Bow caps. torpedo flooding, expulsion of water, recovery of (some) of compressed air. Most of the sounds in 10 and 11 audible on player operated escorts via hydrophone if directed in that direction and not using Asdic at the time.
12. Suitable repair sounds, audible at closer ranges by escort hydrophones?
Well there's a few sounds that could influence actions, help create a soundscape and (some) understanding of the situation around any given boat, as well as some suggested treatments, as well as injecting some drama and foreboding on occasion. Feel free to add some more! Ideas that help create a narrative to the game may be good candidates. (In the post game debrief: "At 12:35 we heard an estimated 35 DC's going off at some distance" or "we had a terrible time getting a mine-cable to release" etc, to help discriminate one game from another?
One favourite idea of mine is to use the amplitude of speech within the boat, using in game voice, to be detectable via AI or player operated escort hydrophones if the escort is stationary, engines off, or speech is cumulatively above a certain volume over a short period of time with the escort close by and as described, and might invoke the desire to whisper commands/limit who speaks, when penetrating the escort screen whilst shallow. Calm seas/low wind speed would render this more important, and would reduce the need with increase in depth, higher windspeeds etc.
EDIT - Addendum. I raised this as an idea on the boat last night, using in-game voice. For a period of time everyone played as if this was the case, with whispered commands and no un-necessary speech. It proved very popular and very atmospheric. If there was a real advantage to using low voices on in game voice - when perhaps in fairly close proximity to escorts, or rather, a disadvantage via possible detection if louder voiced commands and general chatter, then I think this could become quite a good addition to the game. "All" that would need to be done is for the cumulative amplitude of all speaking voices to be tracked and every few seconds a single numeric value sent to nearby escorts, diminishing with distance. If they are in listening-mode, ie slow speed or stopped and using hydrophones, then if that numeric value exceeds the value for the distance twixt uboat and escort, then either, a) the AI escort detects you on the hydrophone or b) the human escort player can here heavily distorted voices (need not be the actual conversations that occurred) lasting for as long as the original louder conversation occurred. If the human player sweeps the hyrophone in that direction during that period, then he may detect the u-boat... Obviously this would all be external to the convoy. I would not expect voices to be detectable on hydrophones within the convoy due to the very loud background noise of engines/props on similar frequencies.
Raf1394
10-02-24, 07:16 AM
Nice ideas Fidd :up:
Raf1394
10-03-24, 02:53 AM
7. Torpedo detonations. Hard but possible to discriminate from DC's, but easy to do so via hydrophones. Ranges as per DC's. Close by torpedo-screw very audible though-out boat. Frequency and directionality with doppler. A "near miss" from another u-boat would become quite scary!
I also remember Fidd, that we could hear the difference on the hydrophone, if the torpedoes running are steam or elektric
There is a difference in propeller sounds if i remember correctly. I remember this while we played together during the Duyfken Pact on Muttley's boat.
183. Survivors - victory conditions?
Convoys did not stop to rescue survivors. That said, they often detached escorts with scrambling nets to recover survivors during the periods where the convoy was not under attack. Once PVP comes in, it's conceivable that there will be "Victory conditions" which could count towards both individual boats winning amongst themselves, but also a general allies v axis result.
Individual victory conditions metrics for each u-boat:
Tonnage.
Not getting detected.
Not being damaged.
Not being destroyed.
Year played, the earlier the lower the points.
Hitting on or after TOI (entered by lead boat)
General allied and axis metrics for the game's overall win/loss
Allied:
Size of Convoy, the smaller, the greater the points.
Number of escorts.
Ratio of average number of escort players in relation to u-boat players. (Killed players count double.)
U-boats detected, by AI or player
U-boats damaged by AI or player
U-boats destroyed by AI or player
U-boats depopulated during game (count as kills)
Ratio and tonnage of surviving ships at game end.
Year played, the later the fewer points for allies
Values for lobby each difficulty settings. The harder, the less for allies.
Axis:
Sunk tonnage
Ratio of overall sunk tonnage by pack relative to initial.
Not being detected (numbers of boats true of)
Not being damaged (numbers of boats true of)
Not being destroyed (numbers of boats true of)
Year played, the later the more points for axis
Values for lobby each difficulty settings. The harder, the greater for axis.
Fulfilling tasks set in campaign? (penetrating enemy port, etc), picking up survivors?
So, at game's end, a calculation of all these factors (and I may well have missed some) is made to determine which was the most successful boat, as well as which side won the engagement. Play-testing could result in the weight accorded to each of these factors being adjusted to give fair but demanding results, rewarding in each case effective tactics/daring, but also making a proxy for "fear of death" etc. The proposed system might involve constants multiplied by game variable numbers.
Consideration could be given to campaign results?
184. Conditional instability in depth-keeping.
One of the (very few) significant disappointments with this game, is the way in which the boat seems to "run on rails", despite changes in buoyancy consequent from changes of weight (firing torpedoes or bilge filling) and changes of dynamic pitch control or drag from changes of speed. Or from near misses from DC's under or above the boat, causing water rushing to fill the area where the water has been displaced. Or indeed, near the surface, wave action making pitch-control at slow speed challenging.
All these should make life fairly difficult for the captain on the AP, the OP operator, and most especially for the dive-officer.
Reading accounts of u-boat and indeed RN submarine operation, a common thread seems to be some difficulty in maintaining periscope depth, especially when torpedoes are fired. When under DC attack it was not unusual for some quite significant divergencies from level pitch attitude to occur, as well as depth changes. This could create some interesting situations, where DC's exploding above a boat at fairly shallow depths, might cause a boat to briefly broach the surface, or, if DC'd at great depth with explosions below the boat, may cause an uncontrolled descent to near crush-depth. Prompt and correct use of trim, speed and longitudinal balance tanks could moderate these problems and avoid the more disagreeable consequences. All in all, I'd like to see a higher workload for DO's to maintain PD, with much more to do in correcting changes on buoyancy (howsoever arising) possibly in combination with the CE assisting the hydroplane operator via balance or trim tank changes.
185. "Intermediate" leak rates.
Currently we have "fast leaks", such as occur when certain hatches or hull-valves are left open during a dive, and very slow leaks, such as the gradual addition of water to the bilge once the boat goes beyond 150m or so in depth. (I forget the figure as I type).
Here's the point, what if there were leaks which fell between these two values?
What I'm driving at is that they would not be an immediate threat to the boat, in the way leaving the top hatch open during a dive, but would not be so slow that they can be safely ignored almost indefinitely at 185m, provided a sufficiency or battery and compressed air exists to surface safely? We need a leak-rate whereby it's not going to cause a loss of the boat in the next few minutes, but it's going to prevent the boat from remaining at great depth without efforts being made to slow the flooding rate and get rid of some weight.
I think the approach the devs have implemented whereby the greater the depth, the greater the flood rate (even with an intact undamaged uboat) is correct, but that with increasing damage, the depth at which this occurs should reduce, without damage control to reduce the flooding. NB not "stop it"!
The point of this is that diving to 185m should NOT make you immune to being detected by ASDIC or free from being DC'd. However, being at 185m would provide plenty of scope for eluding DC's owing to the greater period required for them to sink to depth, and less accuracy in depth estimation. However, were a near miss obtained, intermediate leaking would commence, limiting your time at 185m, and requiring a reduction in depth to keep vertical control of the boat. Prompt damage control, or blowing the bilge, would limit how much depth has to be sacrificed in this way. Currently the slow-rate of flooding means there's no decision that has to be taken to reduce depth to forestall flooding. An intermediate flood rate would create that problem. However, it's not in the games interest, I suggest, for that intermediate flood rate to arise, except as a consequence of damage whilst at depth, or going to it. Meaning that if you're DC'd at 30m, if you then descend to 185m, you may then discover you can't stay there very long!
So an intermediate flood rate would help complicate the decision making, and the need for feedback on flooding between different compartments and the captain.
EDIT: Regarding being detectable via ASDIC at greater than 185m. The usual objection to this concerns the convoy remaining alerted because an escort is continuing to detect a uboat. The obvious solution for this is to make separate the asdic detection and search from the zigging behaviour of the convoy, and making the zigging conditional on the depth of the detected u-boat. So, if for example, your u-boat is detected and DC'd, with resumed asdic searches relocating you, then provided you're at (say) 130m plus, then the alert state of the convoy ceases once you're at 130m or greater, as you're no threat to the convoy at that depth. This would allow for the convoy to de-alert in a way consistent with allowing other boats to attack, whilst still allowing your boat being hunted and DC'd. The best of both worlds!
186. Attack of the Kraken.
One day a year, by choice April 1st, one or two subs in the game should find itself slowly snatched to crush-depth, with the boat taking on extreme attitudes. Views out of the periscope should reveal a roiling riot of pink slithering suckers. On the outside of the u-boat for a change!
187. Ability to suppress "Mission Complete" screen.
This is a small but ever present irritation, as this bloody screen has to be cancelled usually when we're moving at speed in the engine room. I would just love to be able to suppress this screen via UI check-box. Small problem, but repetitive irritation!
188. Ship names either side bow and at stern.
It'd be a nice touch if all ships had their names either side of their bow, in lettering visible at a few hundred meters, and across their stern, with the name of the port at which they were registered, eg "Liverpool", "London", "Halifax", "Valetta", "Belfast" etc. Ship names and ports of registration are likely available from Lloyds of London or history books. The text is usually white on a darker background, in a Helvetica style font. (Although Helvetica is a post-war font)
Why?
When we get playable escorts, as the escort would spend weeks operating around the ships in the convoy, they would come to know each ship, and would be routinely directed to perform some actions in relation to a merchants position (type, row from front and column port to starboard), or involving a particular ship. Eg, receive an order from the convoy commander (by signal lamp) to 'direct merchant "Bombay" to speed up to 8 knots'.
So in game, escort players should ideally be able to look at any given ship and see what type they are, and the name of the ship if close enough. So simply by looking at a ship they should see HT29 "Ohio" (Houston) for a few seconds before it fades out. In map view, they'd see all the ships and their data 'HT "Ohio" (Houston)' in the same way when zoomed in sufficiently. This would assist player operated escorts to achieve tasks as directed by the convoy commander in relation to a particular ship. If the convoy commander gives an order in relation to a particular ship eg "Position your escort 1.5km abeam "Ohio" 3/4 at convoy speed and search on asdic" the escort would know that Ohio lays in the 3rd row and is the 4th ship in the row.
Ship names/registered ports could also sometimes be included in the u-boats log, if the u-boat is close enough to see that ship before it is sunk.
Raf1394
11-01-24, 03:44 AM
187. Ability to suppress "Mission Complete" screen.
This is a small but ever present irritation, as this bloody screen has to be cancelled usually when we're moving at speed in the engine room. I would just love to be able to suppress this screen via UI check-box. Small problem, but repetitive irritation!
I agree with this, needs to be fixed. Very annoying. :Kaleun_Wink:
Not only engine crew. even as dive officer or captain who is on the Attack periscope. It can be annoying for the TDC operator too.
If you play as dive officer for example. And you crash dive or do a normal dive, and the negative tank is flooded.
And while diving, our torpedoes hit the ships and the mission is complete, we usually get that end screen of ''mission complete''
You can't get out of it that fast. So as dive officer you lose some time to empty the negative tank while going deeper. So you will use more compressed air later on blowing it at deeper depths, if you get stuck at the end screen for a while. (or you can ask someone else to blow the negative tank for you-)
189. Plottable map for escorts, similar to uboat's nav chart. (but without code-groups).
It's foreseeable that when playable escorts come out, and assuming there is some form of direction-finding, that there will be a need for escorts to be able to plot on the map, so as to be able to draw on bearing lines from two different escorts to fix the position of a u-boat, rather than merely the single bearing only, on which it lays, from a single DF. I see DFing as something that should readily occur if a boat is transmitting frequently on the same frequency, however, if short and rapid morse is used sparingly, or with frequency changes, then whilst you might get DF'd, the chances of being so would be remote - eg once every 18-22 games or so? If DF'd a player operated or AI destroyer would belt down the bearing, using asdic after periodically slowing, to locate the u-boat visually or via asdic.
I believe most wartime radio operators had "skeds", which were periods they had to listen out and/or transmit on particular frequency. Some form of this would help give radio-operators more to do in terms of adjusting the radios?
190. Zigging periodicity dependant on passing threshold of interboat RT use, then rate increasing with number of u-boats transmitting traffic after that threshold reached. Threshold has slight variation to prevent radio operators being able to calculate the limit.
The intention of this is to introduce a counter-pressure to unconstrained radio use, effectively making an analogue of the combined efforts of the Y service, Admiralty and Coastal Command radio intercepts, and of course Enigma breakage, which in sum allowed signals such as "there are now thought to be 8 uboats in your area", the receipt of which might cause the convoy to zig with greater frequency, and also to make larger changes to the base convoy course so as to complicate German efforts to intercept the convoy.
As some radio operators will not care for this, which is quite understandable, especially amongst "real morse" operators, it'd HAVE to be a configurable in the usual set-up menu.
The recorded tally of characters sent, perhaps (?) multiplied by any DF information, gathered either by AI of Human Huff-Duff operators on the escort, could be the count applied to determine of the zig rate accelerates? So in a four-boat game, the threshold would become lower than in 2 boat game, causing the acceleration of zigs to increase as a consequence of a greater perceived threat.. Not sure how this could be done, but if ever Enigma is repaired, then using it could help stave off the zig acceleration?
Raf1394
12-08-24, 12:10 AM
Some good ideas Fidd :up:
Radar systems sound interesting.
It's (#190) not radar, it's DFing, which requires monitoring the correct frequency, and being able to establish the bearing whilst the transmission is occurring. With radar, a radio energy pulse is sent out, bounces off a ship, and returns to the receiver on the radar head. Radar is highly problematic in game, as it effectively makes every game a daylight game, and we know how popular THOSE are! I've given a lot of though to radar but can't really see how it could work in game, unless it's range was drastically limited to 5km or so, or it was limited to 1 or 2 escorts?
Raf1394
12-17-24, 12:11 PM
It's (#190) not radar, it's DFing, which requires monitoring the correct frequency, and being able to establish the bearing whilst the transmission is occurring. With radar, a radio energy pulse is sent out, bounces off a ship, and returns to the receiver on the radar head. Radar is highly problematic in game, as it effectively makes every game a daylight game, and we know how popular THOSE are! I've given a lot of though to radar but can't really see how it could work in game, unless it's range was drastically limited to 5km or so, or it was limited to 1 or 2 escorts?
Nice idea, Hanno would be happy :)
191. Complete rework of depth-charges?
I have already covered aspects such as the 185m and you're safe from asdic, and therefore also DC's, and the ease with which escorts give up on prosecuting attacks/subsequent asdic searches. So I don't propose covering that ground again. This time, I want to consider the rather underwhelming experience of being depth charged. I almost never hear DC's, (even if they confer damage!) and aside from some transient "sparks" there is practically no indication that one has suffered a close miss at all.
Things that could be added:
causing the boat to pitch, roll and/or yaw, subject to the position of the D when it explodes.
Movement of the boat within the water-column caused by aeration of the water affecting bouyancy.
Very VERY loud blast, with "camera-shake", again oriented by the position of the exploding DC relative to the boat.
Knocking crew off stations.
loss of lighting
springing or leaks requiring attention, and a damage model generally.
It seems to me utterly bizarre that the most drama-filled anxiety inducing aspect of the u-boat war, is essentially completely missing from the game, being rendered almost silent, with no damage or much in the way of visual indication that it's even happened! As deficiences in the game go, this has to be, by far, the greatest?
Raf1394
12-31-24, 04:58 AM
191. Complete rework of depth-charges?
I have already covered aspects such as the 185m and you're safe from asdic, and therefore also DC's, and the ease with which escorts give up on prosecuting attacks/subsequent asdic searches. So I don't propose covering that ground again. This time, I want to consider the rather underwhelming experience of being depth charged. I almost never hear DC's, (even if they confer damage!) and aside from some transient "sparks" there is practically no indication that one has suffered a close miss at all.
Things that could be added:
causing the boat to pitch, roll and/or yaw, subject to the position of the D when it explodes.
Movement of the boat within the water-column caused by aeration of the water affecting bouyancy.
Very VERY loud blast, with "camera-shake", again oriented by the position of the exploding DC relative to the boat.
Knocking crew off stations.
loss of lighting
springing or leaks requiring attention, and a damage model generally.
It seems to me utterly bizarre that the most drama-filled anxiety inducing aspect of the u-boat war, is essentially completely missing from the game, being rendered almost silent, with no damage or much in the way of visual indication that it's even happened! As deficiences in the game go, this has to be, by far, the greatest?
Even lights suddenly flickering can create some tension.
192. Variable size and colour index mark at centre of screen, as used for clicking on control positions/EOT's etc.
This idea came up this evening from Stellaferox, who stated that he was having difficulty seeing the white index mark as it was very small, and he was seeking to click on the off-white EOT. He's currently playing on a laptop.
It may help a few players where this white index mark could be enlarged and/or changed in colour? It would also be good if there was a keymap command whereby it could be suppressed, just prior to taking screenshots for example? Not urgent, but as it'll only take 5 minutes to code, and probably won't break the engines too badly, might be worthwhile implementing? :hmmm:
193. Clip-boards for non-verbal persistent records/orders/reports.
There are already a few clip-boards around the boat, or positions they could be put. I'd like to see each player able to access these by clicking on them, or navigating to the clip-board view via the "c" menu. Each player position would have a distinct page or pages upon which to write. Captains would have the ability upload at game start, a "standing orders" .rtf file, or .jpg of particular size and filesize, so players can familiarise such standing orders he wishes to state. Each player can upload such data in written-form as they wish to either access during the game, or wish others to be able to read.
For example:
Captain's standing orders: Pre-flooding may be done, but opening MBT's to dive before all safety lights are on is forbidden.
Radio Officer:
Quick reference sheet for radio syntax. Decrypted Enigma traffic (if it's ever fixed!)
Dive Officer:
Preferences for assistance, if any, by other crew.
Table of optimal minimum time to depth of different speeds/hydroplane settings.
Chief Engineer:
Instructions to machinist of who does what, when, and any other information he wishes to convey.
Endurance reports for given battery Kah remaining/speed.
The basic appearance of this virtual clip-board would have tabs, for each crew position, and any page viewed would be "marked read" after 10 second or so. Any role where nothing new has been entered, or the contents have been read, would be greyed out. Dark grey for nothing written, and light grey for contents posted but nothing new since last read. Ideally there'd be a function for copying all the comments posted to all the boats clipboards that could be dumped into a report of the game and aid a post-mortem being done afterwards to go along with the "logbook" data.
Why do this? I think it would help new players adjust to the practices and preferences of the captain of the day, which in turn would help newer players. It could be of some benefit in many different ways in helping a collection of players form a crew. It creates some opportunities for humour. ... For experienced players, it would aid comms within the boat in new ways, as a player friendly tool.
194. Additional forms of broken and solid lines on nav chart.
We currently have 3 forms of unbroken line, and 1 form of intermittent line usable on the nav chart. If one is to permit the tracking of up to 4 uboats, and the convoy, plus other plotting lines, then 6-8 or so lines would permit the convoy, the 4 u-boats plus another 4 for using to plot periods underwater for your own boat, and construction lines etc, then another 4 line types would be useful. I defer to those players who use the nav' charts regularly, but it seems to me that another 2 solid line types, and 2 more intermittent, or semi-intermittent lines ( ie "______ ._____." or "___..___.." or "___>____>" etc) could be useful for distinct plotting conventions. To a certain degree, I'm guessing here that in campaign-mode, the plotting of other boats via position reports and DFing maybe of more relevance to the game than is currently the case?
195. Tools for damage-control
It might be interesting for different roles to have different access to tools for effecting repairs, with the CE and machinists generally having more, but each other roles having tools suitable for effecting repairs at their own station. Additionally, some of the more heavily damaged item might require the tools of more than one player to address.
So, lets say a particular length of pipe was leaking, then flogging the nuts could stop a slow leak, but a heavier leak might require isolation valves to be closed, a player to remove the length of pipe, and a second player to put the new one back in before the nuts are tightened.
Or, a leaking pipe could be dealt with until surfaced by closing the isolation valve only, then repaired or replaced.
I suggest the possible tools:
Fire extinguisher - use on fires
Spanner (wrench). - tightening bolted flanges, replacing pipes (full depth repair, more time consuming than gland repair)
Screw-driver. Getting access to electric service panels prior to fault find with multimeter and repair with screw-driver. Also used to replace depth gauges etc
Gland to tighten down over leaking pipe, suitable for effecting repair at shallow depths on leaking pipes.
Bulkhead timbers. Reduces damage (dead light-bulbs) in given compartment by 20%.
Wooden wedges to batter into holes (similar to gland). Stops leaks from seams
Hammer. Applied after wedge to cause leak to stop.
Lead-lamp. Illuminates area.
Multimeter. Used to fault find electrical fault prior to repair.
straps for battery - used to bridge damaged cells to restore available battery voltage.
If you can think of how these tools might be available crew, and what they might help to fix, please add suggestions. One thing that occurs is mouse-hovering over a damaged item could indicate the tools required, in sequence, as well as the period "mousehovering" to use it. This should provoke some lively discussions, as the water pours in, of that damage needs to be repaired, in what order, to make best use of limited tools available?
Raf1394
02-13-25, 11:37 AM
Nice ideas :Kaleun_Cheers:
196. Exterior rust
Visible in bunker and at sea. A visual indication of the survival streak of that captain over a series of games. See also crew-beards, idea https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2911680&postcount=192
Get killed, back to clean-shaven crew and pristine paint-job! :Kaleun_Crying:
Could also involve clean hats and uniforms, and whether or not the crew has civilian clothing - or not.
197. Clickable link to Discord channel of organised games, with option for Flotillas to disable it if not recruiting. This would help immeasurably in getting new players past the problem of not being able to gain entry to locked lobbies, nor discover the pass-word. Ideally each organised flotilla could have a link from somewhere in every bunker, stating the time of day they normally play (expressed in the timezone of the putative player) so they can commence the process of making contact with players on a given flotilla.
198. Pitch changes with submerged acceleration at half-speed and above.
I've read accounts of u-boats pitching up when accelerating, (submerged) requiring a compensating pitch down of the 'planes to keep the pitch angle of the boat constant. This was caused by the relatively high-drag of the conning-tower and flak/main armament being above the metacentric height of the submerged boat. I've no figures for it, but it would make the dive-officers job more interesting, as accelerating at PD could become a little more risky, and maintaining dive performance in a crash dive would require changes to the planes to compensate, at least when the speed of the boat is increasing. The same effect, in the opposite sense would also occur with a sudden deceleration, however, I'd expect this displacement in pitch to be fairly modest when decelerating. Type XXI boats (of we ever see one!) were more or less unaffected by such changes, as much more attention had been paid to keeping the conning-tower low drag, they had no artillery piece, and the 20mm AA was in low-drag cupolas likewise. But for Type VII's and IX's, especially the late war ones with lots of flak cluttering the conning tower should probably have this as a "thing" to contend with?
This also touches on something else I'd like to see, which is "pitching" to be added to the routine movement of the boat, especially surfaced, and to a lesser degree at PD. Pitching was usually caused by the action of swell, rather than wave action. As I usually play engineer, I couldn't begin to guess if swell is modelled. It'd be interesting to know. Swell amplitude varies with depth to the sea-bed, and requires a persistant steady wind. So I'd expect swell to be low amplitude in Biscay/Norwegian sea, but of more amplitude and greater frequency in shallower seas.If any sea-faring types can confirm that - or correct me - I'd be interested to know. In practical terms, 3 axis movement (with pitching) would slightly complicate maintaining PD and trim for the dive officer, and might limit pre-flooding to conditions suited for it?
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.