Feedback & Suggestions

[Julhelm]

Suffice to say in the new game we've eliminated the need for the finetune button.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Ebongreen

First, my thanks to the PF developers for creating such a fun game. I've been a wargamer since I was a boy, staring with Avalon Hill games - computing has made being a gamer so much easier and quality entertainment so much more portable! I read good things about PF at Pocket Tactics, and am very happy I gave it a try. :

Welcome to Subsim, Ebongreen. Old time gamers like us have seen a lot of change and improvements on simulation games, haven't we? It's been a long time since the Das Boot game and Aces of the Deep. Pacific Fleet has rekindled a lot of interest in sub games, I'm looking forward to their next move.

[nikimcbee]

Love the game, great detail for such a simple game. (I mean that in a good way).

My only gripe, how hard would it be to add Japanese subs to the game?

[Rayydar]

100% agreed, nikimcbee. Missed the Japanese subs as well.
As I understand it, there are only 7 slots for warships in the game. So it would in fact be hard to kick out one of the existing classes in favor of a sub.
I'm very optimistic that future versions will provide more subs, though.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Rayydar

100% agreed, nikimcbee. Missed the Japanese subs as well.
As I understand it, there are only 7 slots for warships in the game. So it would in fact be hard to kick out one of the existing classes in favor of a sub.
I'm very optimistic that future versions will provide more subs, though.

If I could pick one, I'd go for this:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/type_c1.htm

or this:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/type_kd3.htm

[Killerfish Games]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

My only gripe, how hard would it be to add Japanese subs to the game?

It's a good point. Unfortunately as Rayydar mentions we only allowed for the 7 units per side set up in the game. This forced us to choose between 2 BB's for IJN or a BB and Sub as per the USN.
We wanted to provide a surface-based campaign that plays differently to the USN so we went with the 2 BB's.

Good news is that we've learned from Pacific Fleet such that our next title will support multiple units of the same class as well as not be constrained by ships per navy or a rigid predefined campaign.

[CCIP]

Ooh, next title? That news makes me quite happy

Anything that introduces more non-linear, dynamic campaign-ish elements is definitely going to keep us subsimmers playing, so best of luck in developing it to you. It'll also be a definitely instant-buy

[Rayydar]

(@ the First Sea Lord aka Developer:
No need to read the whole novelistic stuff, just the summary, please.)

Once upon a time, there was a captain called Rayydar fighting his way through the Gato solo campaign and some single battles - which brought up 'several' questions & suggestions.

Right, when enemy ships don't flee from my killer surface vessels, there is a slightly greater chance to 'ambush' them. It just requires a lot of 'patience' (a word I have to look up in my dictionary again and again whenever this funny virtue is required!).

However, if an undamaged enemy ship once has decided to leave the area, there is no chance to make it return.
If I surface outside of its gun range, the enemy doesn't seem to spot me (makes sense) and continues to steam away with 32 - 35 knots.
Surfacing within gun range, by contrast, is Kamikaze, American-style! My tiny little Gato with its minmal silhouette is always spotted even at maximum range.

This was the good news. The bad: AI gunners, often too dumb to hit a cruiser at 100 yards, are deadly for a sub (> 50% chance to hit). Once a Takao opened fire at maximum range (well, broadside) and sunk me with her first salvo! This was the point of time when I decided to buy the A-bomb!

Furthermore:
Well, a sub has no armor. It's realistic to take considerable damage when hit. However, the Gato sinks at only 50%, once even at 35% flooding. Yup, due its limited lenght it is always hit at the bow or stern. But all in all, it seems to be made of glass.

Thus, as measures of precaution, I ordered my helmsman to avoid collisions with jellyfish by all means. And appealed to the entire crew: "Guys, none of us wants our sub to be blown up by friendly fire. So would you PLEASE control the pressure of your farts!"
I hereby apply for a job on an oiler which can easily sustain 4 torpedo plus some shell hits - in the game.

And then there was a zone with Shokaku & Zuikaku. I even managed to torpedo both of them, causing significant lists and temporary flight deck fires. After these were extinguished, both vessels were still heavily listing - and both launching airstrikes nevertheless!

Gravity vs. friction. Friction (still) wins.

Honestly: Would you like to start on this flight deck??? I would go on strike for either
a) a ski-jump deck or
b) a water-tight plane with periscope and snorkel upgrades installed!

BTW: When a dived sub is being air-attacked, AA rattle can be heard. Does this correspond to my option b) above?

A sub's main weapon, however, is the torpedo. It has got five of them initially. Five? YES! Because the first is always (well, 95%) stray or dud (and of course nobody programmed this ). Once, even my first three tin fish were crappy.

Well, s*** happens, I managed to stay undetected, the enemy vessels went off as usual. 'Pursuing' them and suicide-surfacing (see above) from time to time, I hoped that my empty 3 tubes would be reloaded meanwhile, for somehow I wasn't keen on re-engaging three Jap cruisers with only 3 torpedos.

I waited for over 20 minutes - in vain! Obviously my torpedomen were on strike now. And right - they told me they were not willing to even think about any reload activity until the first set of 6 was completely expended. What the ******* is this good for? Anyway, I granted them an instant day off on the sun deck. We were at 400 feet, btw ...

When a tube is eventually reloaded - this good news is displayed after the MOVE action when I just turned away in order to stay undetected. Thus I couldn't fire - not even my non-existent (???) 4 aft torpedos. On the other hand, with the bow roughly toward the enemy, my Gato has the advanced feature of a ~ 90% targeting angle. One doesn't even need to buy this as an upgrade!

Last funny experience for today: Seabeas apparently used to blast 'tin fish tunnels' into rocks / sandbanks. Reminds me of toad tunnels under highways nowadays. Really animal-friendly, guys!




Summary:

Questions:
1. Why does the AI always spot a surfaced sub at 10 sea miles or more? This is not realistic.
2. Why does the AI's chance to hit a tiny sub seem to be much higher than to hit a surface ship?
3. Why does a sub always sink at >= 50% flooding?
3. Why is the estimated chance to hit with the first torpedo <= 5%, < 75% for the second, while subsequent attacks are > 90% successful (all at medium range with a 5-star boat)? Is this to simulate a kind of on-the-job training?

Suggestions:
1. Reduce or remove the unrealistic targeting angle of subs but:
1.1 install aft torpedo tubes if historically existing,
1.2 reload torpedo tubes ASAP, not only when the first set is completely expended,
1.2 make subs harder to detect, even when surfaced,
1.3 reduce the chance to be hit by gunfire,
1.4 remove the penalty on the first torpedo(es) (or deny there is any, and this is what you will do )
Otherwise sub warfare won't be fun in the future.

2. As a little compensation, install Hedgehogs on escorts. The depth charge targeting angle is too small in PF; little chance to get them into action.

3. Disable airstrikes if carrier listing (accumulated for all directions) is > 15 or 20%.

Glitches:
1. AA sound by a dived sub when air-attacked.
2. Torpedoes diving under rock / sandbank and reappearing on the other side.

[Killerfish Games]

Originally Posted by Rayydar

Thus, as measures of precaution, I ordered my helmsman to avoid collisions with jellyfish by all means.

Originally Posted by Rayydar

Summary:

Questions:
1. Why does the AI always spot a surfaced sub at 10 sea miles or more? This is not realistic.
2. Why does the AI's chance to hit a tiny sub seem to be much higher than to hit a surface ship?
3. Why does a sub always sink at >= 50% flooding?
3. Why is the estimated chance to hit with the first torpedo <= 5%, < 75% for the second, while subsequent attacks are > 90% successful (all at medium range with a 5-star boat)? Is this to simulate a kind of on-the-job training?

Suggestions:
1. Reduce or remove the unrealistic targeting angle of subs but:
1.1 install aft torpedo tubes if historically existing,
1.2 reload torpedo tubes ASAP, not only when the first set is completely expended,
1.2 make subs harder to detect, even when surfaced,
1.3 reduce the chance to be hit by gunfire,
1.4 remove the penalty on the first torpedo(es) (or deny there is any, and this is what you will do )
Otherwise sub warfare won't be fun in the future.

2. As a little compensation, install Hedgehogs on escorts. The depth charge targeting angle is too small in PF; little chance to get them into action.

3. Disable airstrikes if carrier listing (accumulated for all directions) is > 15 or 20%.

Glitches:
1. AA sound by a dived sub when air-attacked.
2. Torpedoes diving under rock / sandbank and reappearing on the other side.

That top sentence cracked me up.
Ok on to some answers:

Answers
1. We don't model detection ranges. Since it is more of a skirmish game, all ships know where all ships are all the time... unless submerged!! So as soon as you surface a sub, you are detected and fair game. Agree this is not realistic. Sensor and visual ranges coming in sequel.

2. This seems strange to me... There are no accuracy adjustments based on target type. Perhaps it is just the paper thin hull of the sub?

3. Due to simple compartmentalisation in a sub. A surface vessel has more compartments and more options to control flooding. But lose a single compartment in a sub and you're sunk.

3. Bug. First torp fired was not getting TDC or Improved Detonators upgrades applied to it. Is fixed on Android and in next build for iOS.

Suggestions
1.1 For the sequel, aft torp rooms are in.
1.2 Coming in the sequel.
1.2 Coming in sequel with factors such as time of day, weather impacting detection of subs and surface vessels.
1.3 Still not sure is a factor? Might be due to susceptibility to splash damage from nearby shells? (splash of the shell fragments, not the water that is).
1.4 Bug

2. Hedgehogs (and Squid) were both allied ASW. Deploying depth charge patterns is in the sequel and Hedgehogs as well as Squid will be available for allied escorts depending on time of war.

3. Agreed.

Interesting glitches.
AA sound on a submerged sub is a bug.
For the most part torps detect when they're hit an island. Are you finding they can burrow under just about any land mass? Might be a bug.

[Rayydar]

Thanks for your replies; most of them make me happy in view of the sequel.
However:

Originally Posted by Pacific Fleet

3. Due to simple compartmentalisation in a sub. A surface vessel has more compartments and more options to control flooding. But lose a single compartment in a sub and you're sunk.

Um ... so why are subs compartmented at all if it's good for nothing?
I'm not a sub expert, but AFAIK a Gato had 7 - 8 compartments of which 1 - 2 could be flooded without loss of the whole boat.
Sorry, I find them too vulnerable in the game.

What about:
1. Reduce or remove the unrealistic targeting angle of subs?

Originally Posted by Pacific Fleet

For the most part torps detect when they're hit an island. Are you finding they can burrow under just about any land mass?

Not really - because I don't use to deliberately torpedo islands
(and don't have a savegame for testing right now).

[Rayydar]

Originally Posted by Rayydar

I'm not a sub expert, but AFAIK a Gato had 7 - 8 compartments of which 1 - 2 could be flooded without loss of the whole boat.
Sorry, I find them too vulnerable in the game.

Just experienced the very contrary:
A Shokaku, heavily listing to port and with flooding = 100%, required two more torps plus a mag explosion due to shell hit to eventually go down. So 50% is enough to sink a Gato, but 100% is not enough to sink a Shokaku. I'm afraid I do not really understand these percentages.

[Rayydar]

Is there a difference in damage inflicted by common and AP shells if the target is not armored or my caliber is much bigger than the target's armor (e.g., Yamato vs. Cleveland).
I use common shells as long as they are likely to penetrate because in reality AP shells carried a relatively small amount of explosives. Is this modeled in the game?

[Killerfish Games]

Originally Posted by Rayydar

Is there a difference in damage inflicted by common and AP shells if the target is not armored or my caliber is much bigger than the target's armor (e.g., Yamato vs. Cleveland).

Not a big difference due to gun calibre providing most of the AP potential.
18" vs 5" amour:
HE shell 32%
Common shell 100%
AP shell 98%

Originally Posted by Rayydar

I use common shells as long as they are likely to penetrate because in reality AP shells carried a relatively small amount of explosives. Is this modeled in the game?

Yes.
HE shells have a larger warhead (+20% damage) but essentially no armour penetration capability and AP shells have a smaller warhead (-30% damage) but can deliver it through armour.

[Rockstar]

Recently downloaded the 'Lite' version. Having fun. Quick note here, based on photographs of a Gato class sub they appear to have either 4 or 5 blade outboard turning counter rotating propellers and a big ol' barn door rudder along the centerline of the ship.

In game I was shelling a frieghter close aboard and needed to back away to avoid collision in order to bring guns to bear on a second target. I put the rudder hard over to stbd and backed down but the bow moved to starboard instead of falling off to port like I was expecting.

Theoretically (in a solid medium) when moving ahead turning the rudder to starboard will push the bow to starboard. When backing and turning the rudder to starboard it should cause the bow to fall off to port, not to starboard like it did in game.

just an FYI

[Rayydar]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

... when moving ahead turning the rudder to starboard will push the bow to starboard. When backing and turning the rudder to starboard it should cause the bow to fall off to port, not to starboard like it did in game.

I found this confusing as well. After a while, one gets used to it though. The slider position doesn't refer to the rudder position but to the course of the (forward moving) boat. Maybe for people who don't even understand to drive their car backwards?
This should be fixed in Atlantic Fleet anyway.
And torpedoes should not be usable at point-blank range.