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.

Nice ideas Fidd :up:

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.

1. Not getting detected.
2. Not being damaged.
3. Not being destroyed.
4. Year played, the earlier the lower the points.
5. Hitting on or after TOI (entered by lead boat)

General allied and axis metrics for the game's overall win/loss

Allied:

1. Size of Convoy, the smaller, the greater the points.
2. Number of escorts.
3. Ratio of average number of escort players in relation to u-boat players. (Killed players count double.)
4. U-boats detected, by AI or player
5. U-boats damaged by AI or player
6. U-boats destroyed by AI or player
7. U-boats depopulated during game (count as kills)
8. Ratio and tonnage of surviving ships at game end.
9. Year played, the later the fewer points for allies
10. Values for lobby each difficulty settings. The harder, the less for allies.

Axis:

1. Sunk tonnage
2. Ratio of overall sunk tonnage by pack relative to initial.
3. Not being detected (numbers of boats true of)
4. Not being damaged (numbers of boats true of)
5. Not being destroyed (numbers of boats true of)
6. Year played, the later the more points for axis
7. Values for lobby each difficulty settings. The harder, the greater for axis.
8. 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.

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?

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?

Nice idea, Hanno would be happy :)