A few new ideas

[Fidd]

70. Other boats hits and sinkings represented on logbook in parentheses, with u-boat number, with seconds for hits only.

Eg, in logbook view:

19:22:35 (U96) launch tube 1
19:23:05 (U96) launch tube 3
19:24:57 Heavy tanker 12 hit (U96)
19:25:02 Heavy tanker 8 hit (U552)
19:25 Heavy tanker 12 sunk (U96)
19:26 Heavy tanker 8 sunk (U552)

A check-box in the logbook would remove all hits, sinkings of other boats from view, giving in effect, the current logbook mechanism.

This would be a very useful utility for post-game analysis of which captains are hitting early, and by how much, without removing the fog-of-war, as captains can choose to play the game with the view of other boat's hits etc being suppressed from their logbook view.

[Fidd]

71. Reform of "workshop" tool.

This game, imho, is at it's very best, in organised games written in the workshop, exploring the full envelope of what's possible to vary, rather than the standard settings invariably used for casual lobby skirmish games; especially with full crews and 4 boats. I've not used workshop myself, but am aware from talking to those that do, that the current "tinkerable" workshop settings are still overly restrictive, meaning that in organised games it is exceedingly difficult to diverge much from the "standard" game. Please submit your ideas for additions or changes you'd like to see able to be created for workshop missions and I'll edit them into this post. To start with:

1. Ability to spawn outside of hydrophone range, to allow for initial convoy position and mean heading to be sent on Enigma to all boats, then requiring navs to plot an intercept until hydrophone and thence visual range may be established.

2. More varied weather, wind, precipitation, fog, mist, volumetric and stratiform cloud.

3. Aircraft patrols/attacks, Catalinas or Sunderlands or Wellingtons.

4. Ability for ships to either detach from the convoy, or, to join it at a particular time or position.

5. Hunter-killer groups able to join, or be attached to, a convoy, or, to be away from the convoy but able to intercept u-boats attempting to get to, said convoy.

6. Ability to define start position, heading and speed of convoy, as well as -u-boat starting bearings and distances up to 100km from convoy

7. Ability to define start positions for u-boats relative to convoy defined at the instant they spawn in. (allows for sequenced or irregular-timed log-ins/positions without causing undue delay)

8. Ability to have AI Condor, AI Ju88's when in range (most of all sea-areas), presence of Escort carrier in convoy precludes Condor arrival until it is sunk.

9. Ability to set minefields in coastal sea-areas

(Please add your own)

[Fidd]

72. Avatar customisation as persistent player appearance with the following features:

1. Build: "thin, "medium", "heavy-set".
   
2. Height: 5 foot 3" to 6 foot.
   
3. Age: 18-35 affecting facial-hair, build and facial appearance.
   
4. Facial hair: - clean-shaven to bearded.
   
5. Clothing: Civilian, Military, Spectacles, Hats, for trousers, shirts, hats.
   
6. Rank insignia: when military clothing is selected (resettable each game if desired to change).
   
7. Dirt: Degree of dirt applied to items of clothing.
   
8. Haircuts: From German military to longer. Longer-hair rank-dependent.

The aim of this is to make fellow-players with whom one plays more recognisable by appearance as distinct and unique individuals.

[Fidd]

73. Sea bed composition

Hitting the sea bed may, or may not, generate loud noise and/or damage "subject" to both how hard it is struck, and by the composition of the sea-bed at that locale. So soft silt or sand will create one one set of outcomes, and rock quite another. Rather than go to all the trouble of mapping it manually, if it could be done at all, I suggest a simple algorithm is used whereby the rate of change of depth away from any x/y location is used to determine the sea-bed composition. If the rate of change of depth is very small, then the sea-bed is more likely to be silt/sand, if high, then more likely to be rocky and injurious to the u-boat if it struck?

I suggest that different advantages and disadvantages be applied for impacting the sea-bed. Possibilities might be:

Rock - considerable noise to listening hydrophones on escorts, some damage to hull/u-boat hydrophones/planes/single propeller. Difficulty for asdic getting a firm fix on the u-boat.
Might lead to prolonged, but inaccurate depth-charging if under 180m depth?

Sand/silt: quieter impact, sound related to both forward and vertical speed. Possibility of damage to hydrophones, once stopped no enemy hydrophone detection possible. Asdic detection possible, but at less range than a u-boat in the water-column without the sea-bed being proximate? Of use in shallow-seas.

[Fidd]

74. Ability to save images of the map, logbook, radio-log and mission-end screen with a single command. And/or automatic save configurable when missions ends. Would be of enormous use to captains for debrief purposes in organised games.

[Fidd]

75. Difficulty setting - Escorts

Imagine there was a lobby setting which controlled how far away from the convoy escorts might spontaneously move, as well as the bearing change away from convoy heading when they did so.

Now imagine that this was an invisible setting only known to the mission designer or lobby creator.

This would allow for games where the escort AI was less predictable, and the game more varied in outcome, BUT would allow newer players to use less arduous settings if they so wished...

If an escort apparently moving parallel to the convoy suddenly makes a 60 degree turn towards the flank of the convoy at 18-36 kts, for a kilometer or so, then relying on detection distances where the u-boat captain "knows" he is utterly safe from detection becomes more tricky....

So on "easy mode" escorts might patrol with only a small change of heading from the convoy course, and a short distance at low speed; and on "hard" they might turn 60 degrees or more, and move a km or more, and do it quickly meaning that players would have to spot the threat, and act, much more than is currently the case. Because the setting is invisible to players, one can no longer rely on being 2000m (or whatever it is) as being "absolutely safe" from detection, because you don't know, as a captain, with what difficulty setting you are contending.

This effect could be enhanced by having harder settings initially making gentle, slow speed changes of heading, for shorter distances, and only later doing the quicker changes of heading, for longer distances, at and at greater speed in knots. Thus keeping the apparantly random effect concealed for longer...

[Fidd]

76. "long games"

Suppose it was possible to generate realistically sized convoys, and each had a name eg "PQ17". Now suppose one player starts a lobby and plays the game. When he's finished playing, the composition, time of day, position etc are saved and uploaded to the cloud. The next player to start a lobby is given the option of making a completely new lobby, OR continuing the PQ17 convoy, which would then involve downloading the PQ17 end-game status of the previous lobby attacking PQ17. If he elects to attack PQ17, then he and his mates, with as many u-boats as they have, can attack the convoy, generating a new status in turn to be uploaded to the cloud....

Time might pass between attacks, so that the convoy makes progress between attacks. The convoy then either makes port, or is partially or completely sunk. All the players who participated are then notified of their victory/draw or loss, subject to the numbers of u-boats and merchantmen sunk etc.

This would allow for a more narrative story of the battle for a convoy to develop over RL days and weeks, by essentially linking the results from one lobby to the next, to the next until a series of attacks on a convoy is complete. When a boat is out of torpedoes it can rearm at a milch-cow, or return to port. Dependant on which the skipper elects to do determines whether a 2nd attack may be launched by him on the same convoy, or if he needs to commence an attack on a nearer convoy. It could also be made interesting, because attacks early in a convoys transit, would put the u-boat under greater threat of being attacked by aircraft, BUT, in choosing to prosecute an early attack on a convoy, a greater number of larger ships would exist within said convoy. So there's an interesting risk/reward paradigm going on there too.

This would also, counterintuitively, allow for shorter play sessions, so that a crew could play for say 2 hours instead of 3, but play together more frequently, attacking the convoy at more regularly at shorter intervals, torpedoes permitting. It could be broken down further, so that a u-boat might play for an hours play, each RL night, firing circa 7 torpedoes, and then the following RL night play the second tranche of torpedoes, with them only having moved to attack the following (game) night. Such a system would help gaming periods to be of shorter, or longer RL time periods, rather than the 3 hour plus period of Frost/Duyfken/9th Flot games, although it would not preclude them, as players desire. I have noticed that some friends, who I think would greatly enjoy the game, are rather put-off it by the incredible time-sink it involves, with playing 4 x 3 hour games a week. It basically limits the game to popular play by retirees and kids!