A few new ideas

[Fidd]

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]

Some fantastic suggestions across these few pages
Are the Devs aware of this particular thread ?

Cheers,
Lost

[Fidd]

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.

[Fidd]

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....

[Fidd]

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

[Fidd]

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.

[Fidd]

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