With so many suggestions....

Ducimus · 11-18-09, 06:30 PM

Figured i'd add my own 2 cents worth

Thing's i'd love to see in a new WW2 sub sim.

1.) Independant engine/motor/screw control. I want to be able to put one screw forward, and one in reverse if i want to.

2.) Depth limit on depth charges. If a US Mark 7 Mod 0 depth charge had a max depth setting of 91 meters, and a Mark 8 had a max depth setting of 153 meters, and a mark 9 was 183 meters, then that's what it should be since subs could get under depth charges in WW2.

3.) Use of compressed air. From shooting torpedo's, to blowing ballast tanks in order to surface, this all used compressed air. The only time compressed air is currently used is if you "blow ballast" in an emergency surface. Compressed air should be used every time you shoot a torpedo or surface the boat.

4.) More control of the dive planes. I want to be able to select how much down or up angle i have on my stern and bow planes. There are times where maybe i need to compensate on either due to flooding.

5.) More authentic ASW employed. I want to see planes dropping FIDO, and DD's dropping patterns of DC's as they would have really done.

6.) More realistic sensor's out of the box. Dev's, having all units in the game using the same 9KM visual sensor is rather uhh... well it leaves lots to be desired.

7.) Patrol endurance limit on subs other then fuel. Subs had a crew, they ate food. They only carried XX amount of days worth of provisions. You don't have to micromange this, but if a sub had an endurance of say 75 days without resupply, then this should be represented. if one wants to go longer then the rated endurance of their boat then they should resupply.

Thats all the functional improvements i can think of at the moment. Of course, none of this will ever see the light of day, just stating my opinion of what would be an improvement to a submarine simulation.

JU_88 · 11-18-09, 08:51 PM

Actually I think point 7) is being done to some extent in SH5, Im pretty sure I read somthing on it in the Q&A thread at the Ubi forums.
Dont know about food etc, but patrol lenghts sound like they might be limited by moral/fatigue.

But yeah all good ideas...

totodog · 11-18-09, 09:28 PM

Actually they talked somewhat about Number 1:

Quote:

Is it possible to develop the feature to control the Port and Starboard engines of the U-Boat independently?

We’re considering this feature. It should go much deeper than just individual control by allowing the player to use the electric motors while on the surface – for faster response to commands.

Reece · 11-18-09, 09:30 PM

Quote:

7.) Patrol endurance limit on subs other then fuel. Subs had a crew, they ate food. They only carried XX amount of days worth of provisions. You don't have to micromange this, but if a sub had an endurance of say 75 days without resupply, then this should be represented. if one wants to go longer then the rated endurance of their boat then they should resupply.

Now what would be great but way too hard for the devs to incorporate would be being able to stop ships, like some did, board, and steal supplies, wonder if any actually tried fishing

!

tonschk · 11-19-09, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Figured i'd add my own 2 cents worth

Thing's i'd love to see in a new WW2 sub sim.

1.) Independant engine/motor/screw control. I want to be able to put one screw forward, and one in reverse if i want to.

I agree

, this feature can be useful if the rudder is damaged or destroyed

.

JScones · 11-19-09, 03:49 AM

Some good suggestions. Guess we'll just have to wait until release to see what priority the devs afforded them.

11-18-09, 06:30 PM	#1
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	With so many suggestions.... Figured i'd add my own 2 cents worth Thing's i'd love to see in a new WW2 sub sim. 1.) Independant engine/motor/screw control. I want to be able to put one screw forward, and one in reverse if i want to. 2.) Depth limit on depth charges. If a US Mark 7 Mod 0 depth charge had a max depth setting of 91 meters, and a Mark 8 had a max depth setting of 153 meters, and a mark 9 was 183 meters, then that's what it should be since subs could get under depth charges in WW2. 3.) Use of compressed air. From shooting torpedo's, to blowing ballast tanks in order to surface, this all used compressed air. The only time compressed air is currently used is if you "blow ballast" in an emergency surface. Compressed air should be used every time you shoot a torpedo or surface the boat. 4.) More control of the dive planes. I want to be able to select how much down or up angle i have on my stern and bow planes. There are times where maybe i need to compensate on either due to flooding. 5.) More authentic ASW employed. I want to see planes dropping FIDO, and DD's dropping patterns of DC's as they would have really done. 6.) More realistic sensor's out of the box. Dev's, having all units in the game using the same 9KM visual sensor is rather uhh... well it leaves lots to be desired. 7.) Patrol endurance limit on subs other then fuel. Subs had a crew, they ate food. They only carried XX amount of days worth of provisions. You don't have to micromange this, but if a sub had an endurance of say 75 days without resupply, then this should be represented. if one wants to go longer then the rated endurance of their boat then they should resupply. Thats all the functional improvements i can think of at the moment. Of course, none of this will ever see the light of day, just stating my opinion of what would be an improvement to a submarine simulation.

11-18-09, 08:51 PM	#2
JU_88 Silent Hunter Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: UK Posts: 3,811 Downloads: 11 Uploads: 0	Actually I think point 7) is being done to some extent in SH5, Im pretty sure I read somthing on it in the Q&A thread at the Ubi forums. Dont know about food etc, but patrol lenghts sound like they might be limited by moral/fatigue. But yeah all good ideas...

11-19-09, 03:49 AM	#6
JScones Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 5,501 Downloads: 19 Uploads: 0	Some good suggestions. Guess we'll just have to wait until release to see what priority the devs afforded them.