A few new ideas

Fidd · 09-16-23, 02:28 PM

45. Leigh-light equipped Wellingtons in the ASV role at night. Introduced in circa mid '42, these had a very bright searchlight in the retractable ventral turret of a Wellington, which could traverse, and hold the submarine in the gap between when radar-contact was lost - circa 1000m out - and when the attack could be prosecuted. The search-light was sufficiently dazzling to make return-fire in darkness difficult, and the losses of u-boats attacked so prohibitive, that Doenitz ordered u-boats to recharge in the day, when they could see aircraft, but to dive at night when they could not. These were active in the North Sea, the channel, and the Bay of Biscay in particular. Attacks were flown at 50 feet! A terrifying prospect for any pilot, even without the possibility of return fire. I believe the altitude was held using an early form of rad alt, and the pilots were limited from using any appreciable bank owing the very real risk of dropping a wing-tip into the drink. Many crews were lost in training sorties, and as many again on ops. It did however reduce the operational efficiency of the u-boats, sank 30 or so, and more importantly, put the rest at risk of attack from aircraft in daylight. In another effort to deal with the threat from night ASV wellingtons, and Sunderlands, considerable efforts were made by the Jerries to up-arm the AAA guns on u-boats, particularly in range with 3.7cm cannon, but also in volume of fire, with the quad 20mm cannon installations. In attempts to offset this, a forward-firing 40mm bofors gun was installed in a British B17, and although highly successful both in terms of damage done, and out-ranging the opponents weapons, this was not proceeded with. Later, German radar recievers were fitted to alert the crews to enemy radar, first Metox, and later Naxos (for different wave-lengths, as allied radar evolved).

How would this function in game terms?

In Biscay in particular, it would make surfacing at night, somewhat risky, although a measure of safety would exist when close to a convoy owing to the number of returns. A standing watch + AAA gunner on deck would be sensible, although this would in turn result in a slower dive. 2nd attacks were possible, and trained for, although commonly all DC's were dropped on the 1st pass if practicable. It was also common for these aircraft to operate in pairs, one to attack, and the other to report the position of the u-boat, and it's approximate heading, in case the attacking aircraft was destroyed. It would then also prosecute an attack if feasible. Metox or Naxos would give early warning, allowing a dive to occur.

Fidd · 09-18-23, 08:08 PM

46. Variable "known" distances, times and other AI behaviour

One of the more irritating aspects of this game is that there are a number of AI behaviours with well-known parameters, which a canny u-boat captain may exploit, utterly secure in the "knowledge" that if he keeps outside of these values, or below them, the AI will behave in certain completely predictable ways. To my mind these should be more "fuzzy", and the AI reactions they elicit, more varied. This applies to zigging, to range from escort when visually detected, to the depth and range of hydrophone and asdic detection, and to the precise timing of convoys resuming their course, and much else besides.

I would prefer it escorts might call over another to their side, and perhaps give no outward sign that they've detected a u-boat, and/or to make changes of course consistent with not having detected a u-boat, before at some point prosecuting an attack-run. Likewise a convoy changing speed and/or course by 2 kts or so, and 20 degrees or so, rather than simply putting all the lights on to telegraph to all concerned that a detection has occurred. In short, a less predictable AI behaviour combined with a more uncertain detection environment, and a less obvious - sometimes - AI reaction.

This could be a selectable degree of difficulty, and when played would mean that whilst you might KNOW the distance at which your boat WILL be detected visually, you won't be able to state with certainty that you boat is undetected merely because you're outside that "safe" range. Likewise, whilst you know if you're quiet, you cannot be detected on hydrophones, now there'd be no "safe-depth" at which you can KNOW you're undetected or immune to being detected on asdic and DC'd.

It's important, in my estimate, that the game have a series of difficulty levels, so that there's always room for players and captains to play at a more challenging level, as that helps retain players in the long-term.

AI behaviours that could then be developed are for more than one escort to attack a given contact, in turn leaving gaps in the convoy which other u-boats can exploit. A human player controlling the behaviour of the convoy, with timers controlling when changes to course can made, how many escorts are despatched to which contact would be a very worthwhile adjunct to this, as again, it'd make the overall AI response to events that much less predictable.

Fidd · 09-20-23, 06:28 AM

47. U-boat development.

I'd like to see the available "years" to play extended gradually towards 1945, with new torpedoes such as the "Lut" series, "zaukoenig" acoustic torpedoes, and an updated TDC for the former's use. Additionally, "Naxos" and "Metox" ASR warning, and "Albericht" counter sonar rubber covering, and heavier flak. Conversely, hedge-hogs and heavier DC salvoes, and radar for some escorts. I suggest that in order to be able to gain these later war u-boat upgrades, captains be required to survive a number of games in earlier years, and achieve a number of mission successes. Having gained them, if they choose to play a game set in an earlier year, then of course they only are able to use upgrades suitable for that year/month. In a similar fashion, weapons and sensors on escorts are likewise tied to the appropriate year/month.

The effect of this would be to extend the difficulty levels of the game, as well as compel changes in tactics used, to help retain players in the long-term, as there is room for the game to become more difficult, as well as some kudos for captains able to play the later years! Being killed in a post '41 game would lose you one upgrade, retrievable by a mission success in another?

Fidd · 09-20-23, 08:17 PM

48. "Convoy commander"

As a precursor to playable escorts, it'd be interesting to consider there being a single player who had some measure of control on the convoy, determining (within allowable limits) when, by how much, and how frequently, the convoy changes heading. Additionally, it'd be good if the convoy commander was able to detach an escort to prosecute asdic searches in a given location, and for how long it, (and any other boats directed to the same area) would prosecute searches and attacks. In all other respects, (for now) the escorts AI would be in effect, with the only changes being that they can be directed to an area on the map, and the duration of asdic searches and attacks. It might well be the case, that a destroyer is despatched to force a u-boat down, and then a Flower or Bittern is used for the attacks whilst the destroyer goes tearing back to the convoy...

This would start to introduce a PVP "battle of wits" between the u-boat players, and the enemy, with dispositions of escorts being more varied as escorts are used to hunt a particular u-boat; and conversely, that other uboats may then be able to exploit a thinned escort screen....

The "convoy commander" would be on the bridge of a Tribal or Bittern, on the "flying bridge". He'd hear pings and echoes, as well as radio reports generated by other escorts detecting a u-boat, or any ship seeing any part of a u-boat. Locations would be given in relation to his position. "3nm SE of you" for example. In time, other player-operated roles might exist on the escorts such as asdic operator, hydrophone operator, gunnery officer, DC officer and navigator.

In order to remove as much of the boredom as possible, I suggest that allied escort crews be able to "teleport" to and from any escort. If leaving one un-crewed, this is notified to the convoy commander, allowing him to set an area to which it should now move, operating under it's AI control. This will allow a limited number of allied players to prosecute DC attacks on a u-boat whilst the convoy commander moves other escorts to other contacts, which they can then teleport to later, in order to "do the fun bit". This mixture of AI and player operated behaviour allows the AI to deal with the humdrum patroling side, whilst giving the attacks themselves the best possible reality. As a human player is capable of much better tactical decisions - he might choose to keep an asdic search going for some time, dropping DC's sporadically - in order to keep a u-boat down long enough for the convoy to move away a distance - or hunt it until it's sunk!

It's also possible that a skeleton crew of players operates each escort, only joining a particular escort to a fully-crewed status for the asdic search/DC attack when it's general location is known....

I'm firmly convinced that this mixed AI/real-player solution, if it can be coded, allows for a given number of escorts to be controlled according to the mind of the convoy commander, whilst keeping at a minimum number of additional players required to crew them, and therefore reduces the load on the server that another 30 (allied) players would involve to crew all escorts.... It would also reduce the boredom involved of "dashing about" in a Corvette at 18 kts!

The general effect of these changes, especially in concert with variable detection ranges (#46), would be to create uncertainty as to whether or not, or when precisely, a u-boat is detected. Because the response to a detection is driven by a human mind, rather than AI, and instead AI is used more to do the bidding of that human mind, traps and stratagems may be used to counter a u-boat attack. Examples might be: Chasing down an intial detection with tribals or bitterns, then human players take over the tribals to prosecute initial attacks, whilst a flower-class is sent also. When the flower arrives, it takes over from the Tribal and continues with searches/dc attacks whilst the Tribal is sent haring back to the convoy to close any gap in the escort screen. A Bittern in then sent to join the Flower class, taking over the search/attack, releasing the Flower-class to chase the rear of the convoy (initially). Finally the Bittern leaves to rejoin the convoy, leaving the u-boat now well out of a firing position, if indeed it has survived. The CC would then direct Flowers towards the front of the convoy as opportunity arises, with faster escorts covering the rear of the convoy?

Intelligent use of the escorts, with players in the above example manning the Tribal, Flower class, Bittern sequentially, would cause much longer asdic searches/dc attacks. With no "safe depth" from asdic contact, (but in practical terms a relatively safe depth for dc hits) it would also allow for a more finessed damage-model to be put in place over time, and a much more varied gaming experience for an evening's play. So human-augmented AI, where decisions are placed in the hands of the human "convoy commander" (CC), with AI manning escorts and complying with directions from the CC eg "go hear and asdic search" to a given ship, and human players jumping at will into escort ships previously manned by AI, allows for a minimal number of allied players to give the convoy defense a much more realistic and intelligent defence?

Rendering range of a uboat to a human escort player would need to be linked to light-level and visibility, to side-step players using gamma to see u-boats further out, at least mostly.

Fidd · 09-20-23, 08:33 PM

49. Change lobby simple-radio choice to a per-boat choice, not a lobby choice, and to be able to freely change between simple and complex "on the fly" in game.

On organised games where real morse-code is used, it would be enormously useful if boats lacking a radio-operator (as sometimes happens, either through lack of volunteers, or latency problems rendering mutilated morse signals). So if a boat lacks a radio operator it could employ simple radio to send and receive, whilst the other boats can use morse. If a radio operator capable of using morse joins, then it can be changed back to complex radio. Similarly if a game starts and it's discovered that there are serious latency problems rendering morse unintelligable, all or some of the "complex" radio-operators can change to simple-radio without the lobby having to be restarted. RENDERED (partially) MOOT BY IMPROVEMENTS TO MORSE

If the simple radio boat sends "encrypted" then the morse signal received by other boats would require decryption. (possibly as a subsidiary selectable setting?)

Once the "per-boat" approach to settings is introduced, it could be extended to allow skippers to choose their own torpedo load-out, whether they're using automatic engines and so forth. This would be especially useful for when multi-boat games are short of a few players.

If a u-boat captain survives "x" missions, and gains mission successes, then the load-out avialable to him might include, date permitting, the use of a few exotic torpedoes, such as "zaukoenig" or "lut" torpedoes, with more average players receving them later in date? If he's on a killed boat, (or logs out from a boat subsequently killed) then he loses this privilege?

Fidd · 09-23-23, 06:06 AM

50. Variable height and build of crew and officers.

Although this would be a nuisance from a coding point of view, as eye-height would need to vary with changes in height, as would uniform geometry, this would help players, especially those who regularly play together, to discriminate between one player and other by their height and/or build, rather than just the tool-tip or hat configuration. It would also make the crew rather more realistic looking. Height and build would be randomly assigned on 1st play session after enactment, and then kept thereafter.

Fidd · 09-23-23, 12:05 PM

51. "Alarm" bells in every compartment? I don't know if this was the case, but it seems to me very odd that there are not alarm bells in the engine rooms, NCO mess, officer's mess and forward torpedo room. I'd be really interested to know if these existed elsewhere in the boat other than the control-room. I'm fairly confident that they must have, if only to ensure crew went to their battle-stations, or were primed to run forwards to assist with the dive angle change required to dive quickly. (Oh for an animation with running footsteps of crew vaulting into the torpedo room as fast as they can! There may not have been the alarm switches to start and stop the alarm bells, but I'd be extremely surprised if there were not additional bells in those compartments - or - that the alarm bell in the control room wasn't so loud it's use wasn't missable in the messes, forward torpedo room and engine rooms. It's possible that alarm-bell switches were in those room, in order to alert the whole crew to an onboard fire or chlorine being present....?

[EDIT] Since writing this idea, Stosstrup has written to me and shewn me what appears to be wartime drawings, demonstrating that repeater alarm bells were indeed present in most compartments, however, that the switches that turned them on were indeed limited to the control-room and conning tower.

09-18-23, 08:08 PM	#2
Fidd Captain Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Blighty! Posts: 542 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	46. Variable "known" distances, times and other AI behaviour One of the more irritating aspects of this game is that there are a number of AI behaviours with well-known parameters, which a canny u-boat captain may exploit, utterly secure in the "knowledge" that if he keeps outside of these values, or below them, the AI will behave in certain completely predictable ways. To my mind these should be more "fuzzy", and the AI reactions they elicit, more varied. This applies to zigging, to range from escort when visually detected, to the depth and range of hydrophone and asdic detection, and to the precise timing of convoys resuming their course, and much else besides. I would prefer it escorts might call over another to their side, and perhaps give no outward sign that they've detected a u-boat, and/or to make changes of course consistent with not having detected a u-boat, before at some point prosecuting an attack-run. Likewise a convoy changing speed and/or course by 2 kts or so, and 20 degrees or so, rather than simply putting all the lights on to telegraph to all concerned that a detection has occurred. In short, a less predictable AI behaviour combined with a more uncertain detection environment, and a less obvious - sometimes - AI reaction. This could be a selectable degree of difficulty, and when played would mean that whilst you might KNOW the distance at which your boat WILL be detected visually, you won't be able to state with certainty that you boat is undetected merely because you're outside that "safe" range. Likewise, whilst you know if you're quiet, you cannot be detected on hydrophones, now there'd be no "safe-depth" at which you can KNOW you're undetected or immune to being detected on asdic and DC'd. It's important, in my estimate, that the game have a series of difficulty levels, so that there's always room for players and captains to play at a more challenging level, as that helps retain players in the long-term. AI behaviours that could then be developed are for more than one escort to attack a given contact, in turn leaving gaps in the convoy which other u-boats can exploit. A human player controlling the behaviour of the convoy, with timers controlling when changes to course can made, how many escorts are despatched to which contact would be a very worthwhile adjunct to this, as again, it'd make the overall AI response to events that much less predictable. Last edited by Fidd; 09-19-23 at 12:27 PM.

09-20-23, 08:33 PM	#5
Fidd Captain Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Blighty! Posts: 542 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	49. Change lobby simple-radio choice to a *per-boat* choice, not a lobby choice, and to be able to freely change between simple and complex "on the fly" in game. On organised games where real morse-code is used, it would be enormously useful if boats lacking a radio-operator (as sometimes happens, either through lack of volunteers, or latency problems rendering mutilated morse signals). So if a boat lacks a radio operator it could employ simple radio to send and receive, whilst the other boats can use morse. If a radio operator capable of using morse joins, then it can be changed back to complex radio. Similarly if a game starts and it's discovered that there are serious latency problems rendering morse unintelligable, all or some of the "complex" radio-operators can change to simple-radio without the lobby having to be restarted. RENDERED (partially) MOOT BY IMPROVEMENTS TO MORSE If the simple radio boat sends "encrypted" then the morse signal received by other boats would require decryption. (possibly as a subsidiary selectable setting?) Once the "per-boat" approach to settings is introduced, it could be extended to allow skippers to choose their own torpedo load-out, whether they're using automatic engines and so forth. This would be especially useful for when multi-boat games are short of a few players. If a u-boat captain survives "x" missions, and gains mission successes, then the load-out avialable to him might include, date permitting, the use of a few exotic torpedoes, such as "zaukoenig" or "lut" torpedoes, with more average players receving them later in date? If he's on a killed boat, (or logs out from a boat subsequently killed) then he loses this privilege? Last edited by Fidd; 11-28-23 at 05:18 AM. Reason: addition of final para

09-23-23, 12:05 PM	#7
Fidd Captain Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Blighty! Posts: 542 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	51. "Alarm" bells in every compartment? I don't know if this was the case, but it seems to me very odd that there are not alarm bells in the engine rooms, NCO mess, officer's mess and forward torpedo room. I'd be really interested to know if these existed elsewhere in the boat other than the control-room. I'm fairly confident that they must have, if only to ensure crew went to their battle-stations, or were primed to run forwards to assist with the dive angle change required to dive quickly. (Oh for an animation with running footsteps of crew vaulting into the torpedo room as fast as they can! There may not have been the alarm switches to start and stop the alarm bells, but I'd be extremely surprised if there were not additional bells in those compartments - or - that the alarm bell in the control room wasn't so loud it's use wasn't missable in the messes, forward torpedo room and engine rooms. It's possible that alarm-bell switches were in those room, in order to alert the whole crew to an onboard fire or chlorine being present....? [EDIT] Since writing this idea, Stosstrup has written to me and shewn me what appears to be wartime drawings, demonstrating that repeater alarm bells were indeed present in most compartments, however, that the switches that turned them on were indeed limited to the control-room and conning tower. Last edited by Fidd; 09-25-23 at 06:07 PM. Reason: addition of final paragraph.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

09-16-23, 02:28 PM	#1
Fidd Captain Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Blighty! Posts: 542 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	45. Leigh-light equipped Wellingtons in the ASV role at night. Introduced in circa mid '42, these had a very bright searchlight in the retractable ventral turret of a Wellington, which could traverse, and hold the submarine in the gap between when radar-contact was lost - circa 1000m out - and when the attack could be prosecuted. The search-light was sufficiently dazzling to make return-fire in darkness difficult, and the losses of u-boats attacked so prohibitive, that Doenitz ordered u-boats to recharge in the day, when they could see aircraft, but to dive at night when they could not. These were active in the North Sea, the channel, and the Bay of Biscay in particular. Attacks were flown at 50 feet! A terrifying prospect for any pilot, even without the possibility of return fire. I believe the altitude was held using an early form of rad alt, and the pilots were limited from using any appreciable bank owing the very real risk of dropping a wing-tip into the drink. Many crews were lost in training sorties, and as many again on ops. It did however reduce the operational efficiency of the u-boats, sank 30 or so, and more importantly, put the rest at risk of attack from aircraft in daylight. In another effort to deal with the threat from night ASV wellingtons, and Sunderlands, considerable efforts were made by the Jerries to up-arm the AAA guns on u-boats, particularly in range with 3.7cm cannon, but also in volume of fire, with the quad 20mm cannon installations. In attempts to offset this, a forward-firing 40mm bofors gun was installed in a British B17, and although highly successful both in terms of damage done, and out-ranging the opponents weapons, this was not proceeded with. Later, German radar recievers were fitted to alert the crews to enemy radar, first Metox, and later Naxos (for different wave-lengths, as allied radar evolved). How would this function in game terms? In Biscay in particular, it would make surfacing at night, somewhat risky, although a measure of safety would exist when close to a convoy owing to the number of returns. A standing watch + AAA gunner on deck would be sensible, although this would in turn result in a slower dive. 2nd attacks were possible, and trained for, although commonly all DC's were dropped on the 1st pass if practicable. It was also common for these aircraft to operate in pairs, one to attack, and the other to report the position of the u-boat, and it's approximate heading, in case the attacking aircraft was destroyed. It would then also prosecute an attack if feasible. Metox or Naxos would give early warning, allowing a dive to occur.

09-20-23, 06:28 AM	#3
Fidd Captain Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Blighty! Posts: 542 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	47. U-boat development. I'd like to see the available "years" to play extended gradually towards 1945, with new torpedoes such as the "Lut" series, "zaukoenig" acoustic torpedoes, and an updated TDC for the former's use. Additionally, "Naxos" and "Metox" ASR warning, and "Albericht" counter sonar rubber covering, and heavier flak. Conversely, hedge-hogs and heavier DC salvoes, and radar for some escorts. I suggest that in order to be able to gain these later war u-boat upgrades, captains be required to survive a number of games in earlier years, and achieve a number of mission successes. Having gained them, if they choose to play a game set in an earlier year, then of course they only are able to use upgrades suitable for that year/month. In a similar fashion, weapons and sensors on escorts are likewise tied to the appropriate year/month. The effect of this would be to extend the difficulty levels of the game, as well as compel changes in tactics used, to help retain players in the long-term, as there is room for the game to become more difficult, as well as some kudos for captains able to play the later years! Being killed in a post '41 game would lose you one upgrade, retrievable by a mission success in another?

09-20-23, 08:17 PM	#4
Fidd Captain Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Blighty! Posts: 542 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	48. "Convoy commander" As a precursor to playable escorts, it'd be interesting to consider there being a single player who had some measure of control on the convoy, determining (within allowable limits) when, by how much, and how frequently, the convoy changes heading. Additionally, it'd be good if the convoy commander was able to detach an escort to prosecute asdic searches in a given location, and for how long it, (and any other boats directed to the same area) would prosecute searches and attacks. In all other respects, (for now) the escorts AI would be in effect, with the only changes being that they can be directed to an area on the map, and the duration of asdic searches and attacks. It might well be the case, that a destroyer is despatched to force a u-boat down, and then a Flower or Bittern is used for the attacks whilst the destroyer goes tearing back to the convoy... This would start to introduce a PVP "battle of wits" between the u-boat players, and the enemy, with dispositions of escorts being more varied as escorts are used to hunt a particular u-boat; and conversely, that other uboats may then be able to exploit a thinned escort screen.... The "convoy commander" would be on the bridge of a Tribal or Bittern, on the "flying bridge". He'd hear pings and echoes, as well as radio reports generated by other escorts detecting a u-boat, or any ship seeing any part of a u-boat. Locations would be given in relation to his position. "3nm SE of you" for example. In time, other player-operated roles might exist on the escorts such as asdic operator, hydrophone operator, gunnery officer, DC officer and navigator. In order to remove as much of the boredom as possible, I suggest that allied escort crews be able to "teleport" to and from any escort. If leaving one un-crewed, this is notified to the convoy commander, allowing him to set an area to which it should now move, operating under it's AI control. This will allow a limited number of allied players to prosecute DC attacks on a u-boat whilst the convoy commander moves other escorts to other contacts, which they can then teleport to later, in order to "do the fun bit". This mixture of AI and player operated behaviour allows the AI to deal with the humdrum patroling side, whilst giving the attacks themselves the best possible reality. As a human player is capable of much better tactical decisions - he might choose to keep an asdic search going for some time, dropping DC's sporadically - in order to keep a u-boat down long enough for the convoy to move away a distance - or hunt it until it's sunk! It's also possible that a skeleton crew of players operates each escort, only joining a particular escort to a fully-crewed status for the asdic search/DC attack when it's general location is known.... I'm firmly convinced that this mixed AI/real-player solution, if it can be coded, allows for a given number of escorts to be controlled according to the mind of the convoy commander, whilst keeping at a minimum number of additional players required to crew them, and therefore reduces the load on the server that another 30 (allied) players would involve to crew all escorts.... It would also reduce the boredom involved of "dashing about" in a Corvette at 18 kts! The general effect of these changes, especially in concert with variable detection ranges (#46), would be to create uncertainty as to whether or not, or when precisely, a u-boat is detected. Because the response to a detection is driven by a human mind, rather than AI, and instead AI is used more to do the bidding of that human mind, traps and stratagems may be used to counter a u-boat attack. Examples might be: Chasing down an intial detection with tribals or bitterns, then human players take over the tribals to prosecute initial attacks, whilst a flower-class is sent also. When the flower arrives, it takes over from the Tribal and continues with searches/dc attacks whilst the Tribal is sent haring back to the convoy to close any gap in the escort screen. A Bittern in then sent to join the Flower class, taking over the search/attack, releasing the Flower-class to chase the rear of the convoy (initially). Finally the Bittern leaves to rejoin the convoy, leaving the u-boat now well out of a firing position, if indeed it has survived. The CC would then direct Flowers towards the front of the convoy as opportunity arises, with faster escorts covering the rear of the convoy? Intelligent use of the escorts, with players in the above example manning the Tribal, Flower class, Bittern sequentially, would cause much longer asdic searches/dc attacks. With no "safe depth" from asdic contact, (but in practical terms a relatively safe depth for dc hits) it would also allow for a more finessed damage-model to be put in place over time, and a much more varied gaming experience for an evening's play. So human-augmented AI, where decisions are placed in the hands of the human "convoy commander" (CC), with AI manning escorts and complying with directions from the CC eg "go hear and asdic search" to a given ship, and human players jumping at will into escort ships previously manned by AI, allows for a minimal number of allied players to give the convoy defense a much more realistic and intelligent defence? Rendering range of a uboat to a human escort player would need to be linked to light-level and visibility, to side-step players using gamma to see u-boats further out, at least mostly. Last edited by Fidd; 12-18-23 at 04:24 AM. Reason: addition of final three paras

09-23-23, 06:06 AM	#6
Fidd Captain Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Blighty! Posts: 542 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	50. Variable height and build of crew and officers. Although this would be a nuisance from a coding point of view, as eye-height would need to vary with changes in height, as would uniform geometry, this would help players, especially those who regularly play together, to discriminate between one player and other by their height and/or build, rather than just the tool-tip or hat configuration. It would also make the crew rather more realistic looking. Height and build would be randomly assigned on 1st play session after enactment, and then kept thereafter.