A few new ideas

[Fidd]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

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.

[Fidd]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

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/sho...d.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]

Originally Posted by Fidd

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.

[Fidd]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

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]

Originally Posted by Fidd

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.

[Fidd]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

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.

[Fidd]

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.

[Fidd]

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....

[Fidd]

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.

[Fidd]

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]

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)



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.

[Fidd]

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]

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".

[Aktungbby]

Adriatico! after an 8 year 'silent run'!

[Fidd]

Originally Posted by Adriatico

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".

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.