A few new ideas

[Fidd]

94. Lights reacting to each other.

It would be good if when a uboat is detected, or the track of a steam torpedo is seen by any ship, if it's searchlight beam ceased moving around, and more or less fixed on that location (of the nearest detected uboat), with adjacent ships gradually similarly directing their search towards that point. Ideally, the more ships that do so, the more the detection-range of a surfaced uboat, or the periscope of one, increases. So instead of a detection range for the alert, and one for the unalarmed convoy, there'd be a gradual increase in detection range as more searchlights join in - if there's something to spot! A more nuanced spread of detection-ranges would help move the game into a more analogue "judging the risk" rather than the more "digital" "we're out of detection range at 2051m" sort of deal. It would also allow a lower detection range for the other side of the convoy, where fewer searchlights are trained his way....

[Fidd]

95. It further occurs to me that a similar "analogue detection ranges" could also be applied to ASDIC, so that if one uboat is detected on asdic, a number of nearby escorts join the hunt, with both the lateral and vertical depth of such searches being influenced by the number of escorts joining the hunt for a particular boat. This would likely make evading laterally increasingly more difficult, especially if the escorts joining the hunt are fast-moving. It would also complicate staying undetected, as it would no longer be a sure-fire evasion to CD to 185m. Instead, with one escort above you, the asdic "floor" might be 160m, with (say) 15m deeper per escort joining, so if there's 4 in all, then one would have to dive to 220m (gulp!) to be sure to evade Asdic. Randon crush-depths would ratchet-up the tension!

A nice side benefit of this is that attacking a convoy where the nearest escorts are slow-moving corvettes would be fairly safe, one with sloops and corvettes less so, and one with more destroyers than corvettes downright dangerous, because the escorts could combine more quickly than would occur if the nearby corvettes the only close escorts..... This would in effect, simulate (ish) the "creeping attack" where 1 escort maintained asdic contact, and joining escorts fired/released DC's on command from the stationary escort. This made it very difficult for the uboat to manoeuvre whilst the attacking escort was in the dead area for it's asdic. It proved fairly effective, and whilst the advent of "hedgehogs" and "squid" rendered it less necessary, it was used until the end of the war, as it was a more certain means of destroying a u-boat than simply having two escorts conducting individual attacks. This method would likely be a lot simpler to model in terms of AI behaviour, than formally coding AI cooperative hunts as movements?

EDIT - addition: Another nice aspect of this is that because the current certainty of safety at 185m is off the table, once a second escort joins the first, it's no longer possible to know when escorts have ceased attacking, meaning that bursts of speed and turns would serve to make re-detections more likely, and precipitate further attacks, with safety only being gained once at least one of the joined escorts have lost contact....

[Fidd]

96. Variable alert behaviour

Rather than zigging being a configurable lobby setting, I think "variable alert behaviour" might be more interesting. Lets assume a u-boat is detected, it doesn't matter "how".

Case 1 A fairly immediate zig occurs, away from the detected u-boat. The escort moves towards the u-boat, and when it's over it's position, the convoy resumes it's previous course from that point on.

Case 2. A fairly immediate zig occurs, away from the detected u-boat. The escort moves towards the u-boat, and when it's over it's position, the convoy commences a new course +/- 30 degrees from that point on 3 minutes later.

Case 3. No zig occurs, away from the detected u-boat, but convoy changes speed upwards by 3-7 knots (to a maximum of 12??) The escort moves towards the u-boat, and when it's over it's position, the convoy resumes it's previous speed from that point on 6 minutes later?

Case 4. A fairly immediate zig occurs, and a speed change, away from the detected u-boat. The escort moves towards the u-boat, and when it's over it's position, the convoy resumes it's previous course and speed 7 minutes later..

Case 5. A fairly immediate zig may or may not occur, away from the detected u-boat. The nearest escort moves towards the u-boat, and when it's over it's position, the convoy resumes it's previous course from that point on. Other escorts join the 1st whilst it maintains hydrophone or ASDIC contact, eventually a destroyer replaces non-destroyer escorts over the detected/lost contact area, releasing corvettes and later sloops, back to the convoy, keeping the u-boat down until well astern of the convoy. The destroyer then returns.

If one could not forecast with certainty how the convoy and escorts will behave when under attack, in the way we can now with both zigging and non-zigging games, and any of the cases above (or similar options) occurred on a more random basis, then the game becomes more variable in outcome and occurrences, which I think improves replayability? By having it as a lobby setting, then those who wish to play without AI response variation could do so, but those who wish to have less predictable AI reactions could likewise do so. This might be a useful intermediate step towards "playable escorts" where decision making as to the defence of the convoy was player organised, rather than purely AI driven.

[Fidd]

97. Cumulative tonnage and surviving contiguous patrol count black board in every U-boat bunker bay, for all 4 boats.

EG:

U96 140,000 tons 12 patrols 0 deaths Captains: Bloggz, Twistelton-Spinebracket,
U307 12,456 tons 1 patrol 1 death Captains: Newguy
(etc)

This would only apply for organised games. The mission uploader would have to upload a special code which would cause the stats to be be updated in the black-board, so when players enter the next game, they see the cumulative stats correct to last mission in the series. If the organisers of the game wish to re-zero the stats, then they'd need to acquire a new entry-code to do so. The stats would track the u-boat, not the crew, but would record the captain(s).

[Fidd]

98. Damage types.

I was thinking about damage today, and how it might be handled. It seems to me that a multipronged approach of different damage-classes might provide for both realistic events, problems to address, priorities to set and a great deal of variety in outcome and content.

Lets consider possible models. This is not so much about specific items being damaged, and more about different classes of damage:

Class one: "permanent" damage. This would be damage that would essentially limit the depth a u-boat could remain at, and if deeper than that, require it to reduce in depth. It could be as simple as "hull-strength" that is diminished by close DC hits. It could also cover damage to hull-valves, ie a leak would be caused which could only be stopped with damage control and a reduction in depth. It remains at the damaged value for the remainder of the game (as our "light-bulb damage currently behaves). Broken battery-cells, destroyed cylinders from engine damage might also be class one.

Class two: "temporary" damage: This would cover damage, or leaking so caused, that could swiftly be taken care of, by isolating a section of pipe, tightening a flange and so forth to stop a leak or a release of high pressure air. Or even extinguish a small fire. The damage and effect would persist until fixed, however, once fixed, the damage-state of those items returns to zero. So this form of damage, whilst possibly serious and contributing to problems, is not permanent in the manner of class one damage, and would apply no constraint to the boat or crew once it is fixed. Note that this form of damage could also be applied to a whole slew of potential electrical, instrument, telephone and so forth problems. The same systems might be damaged by class one damage, so, you might lose the a system in whole, or in part, but be unable to fix it. Until you attempted to, you would not immediately know if the damage is repairable (class 2) or irreparable (class 1).

Class 3: "degrading function" damage. This is damage that is permanent, but which reduces function, rather than renders something broken or failed completely. Examples might be a prop-shaft vibration that increased hydrophone detection range, or, a loss of some functionality of the hydrophone, a limiting of movement of the plane's or rudder, or a reduced upper-limit to which high-pressure air that could be stored. It might render a particular helm-station unusable for steering etc. It would necessitate changes to normal-working practices, and add some problems for the crew, but not in and of itself be a cause for the loss of the boat directly, in the way uncontrolled flooding might cause. A wounded crewman would also come into this category, with concussion effects, a sling affecting movement etc.

Class 4: damage is simply class 3. but with fixable components, so it involves a short to medium degraded function, however, one that could be fixed and countered. Examples might be loss of instrumentation forcing use of standby instruments, or those in other areas (eg the Dive Officer's deep depth guage being broken, causing him to need to use his standby one, or, reports from the tower. Or it might be the loss of a particular gyro compass, lighting etc. All of these would be completely repairable, but, might take time to fix.

With any one, or a combination thereof, of up to 4 of these 4 damage classes being inflicted via close DC attacks, it could provide crews with no damage, unreparable damage requiring a reduction in depth, or permanent degradation of function, or fixable degradation in almost any possible combination; adding, on occasion, a need to analyse, prioritise and effect repairs, possibly with some reductions in function as these repairs are done, in almost endless possible permutations.

Obviously there'd need to be some relationship between where the DC was in relation the u-boat when it exploded, in terms of causing damage to the appropriately located systems. So a hit near the bow should likely NOT affect the rudder! The extent of damage and ability to effect repairs should probably be limited the operator of damaged item, and the machinists.

It is of course a complete given that the radius of effect for a lethal DC would have to be greatly reduced from current values, and that the various classes of damage move outwards from the instantly lethal progressively, one to four (damage class). So, class 4 damage would occur most frequently, class 3 a little less so, and so and and so forth.

With longer and more persistent DC attacks this could provide memorable content, the opportunity for good teamwork, as well as a lot of problems of initially unknown severity or cause having to be addressed, making "getting detected" a rather more serious - and risky - enterprise than it sadly isn't currently.

By classing damage thus (or similarly) I think it should be possible to strike the right balance between successful gameplay and penalties for getting detected and DC'd over time, that would always remain interesting to contend with, both as individual players, but also as crews? I'd not envisage this as causing problems each and every time you are DC'd, but, occasionally giving a slew of problems if you're hit well or in a prolonged attack. So an unlucky early hit, reducing max depth, might cause you to suffer a prolonged DC attack causing all sorts of damage, or, you might evade the 1st set of charges, get deep, and suffer only a very few not awfully close DC's, and get away with just some light class four damage, if any....

[Fidd]

99. Ability to "lock" other boats. It would be handy, on occasion, if a lobby starter could prevent other boats from being manned in order to enforce his preference for a single-boat only operating in that lobby. Ideally such a lock should be reversible in game.

[Fidd]

100. Thoughts on the need for playable escorts:

This is I think something that would revolutionise the game.

The basic premise of playable escorts, as I see it, is to have a have a human player directing the defence of the convoy, or the AI if no-one takes the role. The "Convoy commander" would be able to direct AI escorts to behave in particular ways, such as to maintain a position relative to the moving convoy, to conduct an ASDIC search on the way, or to rush there above convoy speed, and THEN conduct a search. The idea being that A human directs the AI, the AI conducts the bulk of the thankless patrolling tasks, but if an ASDIC or visual contact is made, then players can pile into that escort(s) and conduct attacks, or maintain ASDIC contact (the depth limits for asdic/hydrophones might need revision?). So human players can force a u-boat deep and keep it down by potentially re-acquiring it via a lost-contact search.

This would make the penalty for being detected more serious than it is now, as well as conferring new content to all concerned. More importantly, the knowledge that a human player is seeking to destroy you, and conversely, you as a u-boat crew are endeavouring to outwit him, should add a frisson of competition and memorable game-play! Escorts would have a realistic and finite number of DC's (and perhaps hedge-hog rounds) adjusted so that attacks against deep targets may result in the wastage of limited rounds/DC's. It would be great, post-game, to discover the captain of an escort who gave you a very hard time! Or sank you!

On entering a lobby, one would pick allied or German, but no allied slots would be fillable until at least 3 German players are in game. There would be no indication to allied players as to how many u-boats there are, nor who is crewing them. If at any stage there are no German players in the lobby for a period of 5 minutes, the allied players are notified?

The whole aim here is to allow a human controlled defence of the convoy, with an AI transit of an escort to an area or extant contact, but then put humans in charge of the hunt and destruction of a u-boat if human allied players are available. If they are not, then the AI functions as now. The second aim is to do away with the digital precision with which detection-ranges and so forth are known by u-boat skippers, Instead, there would be a range beyond which the u-boat would not render, (in order to protect u-boats from being spotted due to gamma manipulation. Instead, a manned escort would need to physically spot the u-boat inside that limit range, or, be directed to it by an AI escort which is within the normal detection range. DFing, by both sides might be another wrinkle to add, whereby the direction or even position of the convoy or escorts might be betrayed by radio use....

In my view, playable escorts using AI but also minimising the impact of AI in decision making wherever possible, with players hopping about different escorts on the fly, could add a huge amount of content, without the necessity of large numbers of extra players being on the same host, or indeed much boredom....