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:

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 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!

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.

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.