A few new ideas

[Fidd]

170. 2nd headset in hydrophone station.

There's a 2nd headset on the wall in the hydrophone station. Any player not at the hydrophone station should be able to click on that to put it on, and thereafter be able to hear the same as the hydrophone sounds as well, whilst also allowing conversation between the two. This would allow (say) the captain to be shewn the bearing of the signal but also allow for the hydrophone operator to explain what they can hear on a given bearing to the captain.

[Fidd]

171. Leaking hatches.

I think there should be an intermediate stage between a hatch being opened, and therefore causing extensive flooding, and it being closed, and watertight. So, after a near miss by a DC, this might cause a hatch (or other halve valve) to leak slowly - a trickle of water and/or considerable and fast drops. The effect of this would be to very slowly cause the bilge to fill, eventually causing slight trim changes for the dive officer, but not so fast that it causes other problems such as flooding the diesels immediately, in the way an open exhaust hull-valve does. The flooding rate would be proportional to depth. If, for example, an exhaust hull valve were damaged, it would eventually flood the diesels to the point that they need clearing, but this might be avoided if depth were reduced.

This would be somewhat "atmospheric", but would cause some low-level problems for the crew if remaining at prolonged depth with such damage. Hatches not currently operable - eg the two torpedo loading hatches - could be affected. Damage/leaks from such hatches/valves could reset by surfacing? Or it might remain for the remainder of the game?

[Fidd]

172. Game "remembers and applies previously used filter settings for lobbies"

It's only a few clicks, but I do find this a little irritating to have to change every single time I log in for an organised game.... If the game "remembered" the previously used filter settings, I think that'd be useful? Not a high priority at all, but were it a simple fix, it'd be pretty welcome? Either that, or make the default setting show all games, ie filters OFF?

[Fidd]

173. Moon-paths affecting detection ranges.

If "up-moon" the normal detection ranges are greatly increased, as the u-boat is silhouetted against the well lit sea. As soon as it moves out of the thin strip of illuminated sea, it drops rapidly to normal. Say to 3000m to 2200m or so. On the "down-moon" side, the detection range is slightly increased by (say) 300m as the extra illumination of the u-boat likely is governed by the inverse square law. (Brighter mathmaticians can sort out the physics)

This would mean captains would have to start taking into account the moon's position, and zenith/nadir when approaching the convoy or closing for an attack...

[Fidd]

174. "Better deaths"

Currently the game just stops when a lethal-hit is suffered, be it by DC or gunfire. This seems a complete anti-climax from the action preceding it.

Suppose the death of the boat was more "fuzzy". What I mean by this is that one wouldn't necessarily be immediately aware that a fatal hit had occurred, but rather, were faced with a series of cascading problems. Prior to the lethal hit, the crew might be able to remedy these (see #98), but after the lethal hit, they'd be of an extent, and rapidity of occurrence, that damage control was no longer feasible. An effort to reach the surface and end up in a dingy might be possible, with some crew-members living, but most not.

Post-lethal hit (in order):
Unstoppable flooding
Chlorine from batteries (once bilge is full), coughing, need for respirators.
Electrical failures
Loss of pitch and roll control (boat takes on a list and bow high or low
attitude)
Water level remains flat to local-earth vertical, meaning that if the bow is
low, the water level is higher towards the bow until it begins to seep
through closed hatches, or pour through, open ones.
Uncontrollable descent to crush depth.
Rising water level internally, movement causes splashing sounds as if walking
in 3 feet or so of water. Water rises to 5 feet above lower deck level, leaving player struggling to breathe ..fade to black with screams etc.

As the interface between alive and dead is made less distinct, there will be a short period of "hope" where the crew may believe - and try - to save the boat employing damage-control, and then a realisation that it is going to be lost, at which point, attempting to surface is the only possible way of remaining alive - albeit adrift. Only very rarely will this work. The idea is to derive some dramatic - and "realistic" content from the process of the boat being lost, rather than simply an end-screen... This is not unrelated to the need for DC attacks to be (a lot less lethal) but much more sustained, both in terms of asdic searches and DC attacks, with no "safety" at 185m. The point being that the one thing that typifies the drama of fighting in a uboat is currently missing?

[Fidd]

175. 12 (internal stowage) +2 torpedoes (external stowage) =need to reload the external two reloads through the external torpedo stowage, with some form of mini-game involved to locate the torpedo through the hatch(es?). I can't now remember whether those external reloads fed the forward tubes of aft tube. Anyone have info on that?

[derstosstrupp]

One external was under the forward deck, one under the aft deck.

[Fidd]

Originally Posted by derstosstrupp

One external was under the forward deck, one under the aft deck.

175, (cont'd) Well that's easy then, 1 forward 1 aft. I'm thinking it should be a 7-12 minute process, with a further normal reload time, if put in the tube directly, or another 4 minutes if it's stowed in the underfloor torpedo stowage? Ideally it should require some 1-2 players out on the casing to get the torpedo from the deck to the inside of the boat, precluding diving, use of the deck-gun etc? There must have been some sort of jib to lift and manoeuvre the torpedoes?

Thanks for sharing your incredible knowledge once again!

[derstosstrupp]

Correct yes there was a portable crane that mounted on the deck in order to carry out the procedure. The only indication I have of how long it took in real life is from Brennecke’s “Jäger, Gejagte”, where he reports it took Merten’s boat U-68 50 minutes from the time the order was given to bring down an external torpedo til the breech door of the tube was closed. It was a lengthy process. At least in a pinch they could dive - the boat remained rigged for dive as long as the torpedo loading hatch was closed. They could sacrifice the crane and torpedo in other words.

From a gameplay perspective though yes, should be a shortened process.

[Fidd]

176. Inconstant draft as a difficulty setting.

The draft of a ship changes with the degree to which it is loaded. East-bound ships tended to sit lower in the water than when west-bound. Goods were carried west-bound - often whisky - to help pay for the ammunition/tanks/guns/aircraft carried as cargo.

It might be a nice tough if the heading of the convoy also caused changes, specifically increased draft, for east-bound convoys, by way of a lobby-setting?

[Fidd]

177. Loadout preferences kept game to game (and lobby set-ups generally)

It would be useful, I think, for a single button operable by a captain to set his saved torpedo loadout parameters, ie type on which tube, speed, fusing etc, as well as the set-up for the basic lobby, allowing for further changes to be made as required.

This would save a lot of time every time a game is set-up.

[Fidd]

178. Alarm bells audible through speakers in engine room and e-motor room voice tubes?

This is an alternative to the distinct UI sound interface for the diesel and e-motor room. I still think we badly need that, but in the interim, having the alarm bells audible from the speaker above and behind the diesel controls, and through the voice-tubes, so that crucially the alarm bells are audible the length of the diesel-room, might involve less coding?

Currently there's no obvious indication as to whether a commanded dive is a crash dive, and when it is a normal dive. Knowing the difference would enable to e-motors to be put to full ahead in the case of the former.

[Fidd]

179. Thoughts on radar.

Radar may be very tricky to implement in a fashion whereby players have an agreeable game, relative to pre-radar games, especially if AI driven escorts are determining that a radar-contact of a u-boat has been made. The reason being that a real human radar operator is looking for a contact amongst a whole clutter of false-returns, whereas an AI escort is simply determining it because the return is present, and isn't contending with the clutter.

A bit about radar. Because to "see" a return on the PPI, the radar energy has to get to and from the object reflecting it, In order to "edit out" the plethora of false returns from the sea-surface, there's always a "gain", however, if a gain is applied, then the overall effective range of the radar is reduced, especially when used in relation to a target with a low radar cross-section. Eg a periscope. Radar range is dependant on the square of the range, eg to double the range, one needs 4 times the power. Conversely, a radar warning receiver, such as Naxos or Metox, does have a linear capability, because to function, it only needs to detect radar energy, it doesn't have to make the "return trip" to the escort's radar receiver.

It follows from this that AI escorts need to use a non-linear radar, where small targets far away are very difficult to cause a "detection", but mid range ones of larger targets are much more likely to. As well as the inverse square law affecting radar range, there is also the matter of the radar head oscillating with sea-state, in pitch, roll and yaw. The effect of this is that at some times, a radar-return does not render on the PPI, because at the instant the radar-head crossed the path towards the object, the escort pitched/rolled or yawed in such a way as to misdirect the radar energy. Accordingly it should take several radar sweeps to be able to state with any certainty that there's no target out there. As the screen may be cluttered with false returns as well, picking out another intermittently presenting object within the noise of false returns becomes a highly skilled job. It's foreseeable that making the AI directed escorts function realistically, in terms of making a detection via radar, and it being roughly equal in ability to a player watching a PPI, could be very difficult indeed to code?

Early radars, pre 1950's, were infamously unreliable, until transistor circuits replaced valves and solid state ones. Finally, the height at which the radar head could be mounted, also has an effect both on the range at which a return can be identified amongst clutter can be made, as well as the amount of such clutter. Consequently, I'd expect Corvettes to be a poor platform for radar in all axes, with Biterns a little better, and Tribals better still, although in the case of both the latter, rolling would still be almost as poor as that of the Corvette. In low or flat calm sea-states, however, the radar would be considerably more effective. Both Metox and Naxos were effective versus ship-born radar, but both were very ineffective with aircraft-mounted centimetric radar (ASV). This was purely because for a long time the Germans were unable to ascertain the high frequencies of centimetric radar, and lacking the cavity magnetron, had no idea such high frequency radar was even practicable.

A final issue for radar detection is that if there's an intervening ship, there is in effect a radar-shadow behind it, in which a uboat may sit, invisible to radar even if surfaced. The presentation of the whole convoy on a radar-head sweeping it, should therefore also incorporate such shadows, meaning that the whole convoy cannot be seen.

In conclusion, I think it is likely ignoring implementing AI radar may be sensible, but instead requiring players to interpret returns on a PPI, with all the clutter and spurious returns/blank areas that that involves, so that it's an aid to being spotted by the Mk1 eyeball, but only exceeds that greatly in effectiveness in conditions capable of getting the best out of it. Ie flat-calm in fog, and not out the bleeding edges of it's nominal range. Similarly, the aspect of the u-boat relative to the radar energy should make a target more or less visible on radar, with a momentary use of a periscope virtually impossible to descriminate, but a prolonged period of being surfaced beam-on to the escort, much, much easier.

Lastly, I'm not a radar-expert, and it may be that early radars lacked a PPI at all ( <-- PPI ) but this is my best estimate from what I do know about some foreseeable problems implementing it...

[Fidd]

180. Non-digital detection ranges and alerts

Instead of our "get to 2001m (made-up figure) distance and you're safe" system of detection, followed by an alert if you're detected, suppose that the following occurred (distances arbitrary):

3000m you're completely safe from observation, and do not render for a manned escort's players to see you.

2000-3000m the longer you remain in this area surfaced, the more likely you will be to be seen. Your aspect to the viewer, fog modifier, speed, all affect the period before you're seen.

Under 2000m, you will be seen as soon as you enter surfaced, by AI watch, even if a player aboard a player operated escort fails to spot you.

The general principle here being that whilst you know you're safe from observation outside of 3km from the nearest allied ship, however it's the period in view, as well as the distance which determines if you're seen. Other modifiers could be applied such as being directly up, or down moon, and the level of brightness of the moon-light. With all these variables, captains could no longer close to short range completely certain that if they remain outside of x metres, that they cannot be seen. Likewise, as they render to player observers at 3000m (adjusted by fog modifier) they can be seen by them out to roughly that range. Consideration could be given to making u-boats transluscency to the observer, and the presence of spray particle effects proportional to the period that area of sea is under player observation. Meaning if you simply sweep you binos over an area, you'd be very unlikely to spot a u-boat unless it was close to.

A similar principle could be applied to periscopes, whereby the range affects detection, but also the duration it is above water. So, at say 2000m, you can keep it up continuously without risk of being detected, at 1500m, the duration limit might be circa 45 seconds before you're spotted, and at under 1500m, the duration becomes less and less. Again this could be further modified by the vertical extension of the periscope relative to the lowest level of waves, the type of periscope used, and the speed of the u-boat (creation of visible plume)

The intention of these changes would be to force captains to extend the AP as little as possible, for the shortest duration possible, when close to either merchants or escorts. It would make maintaining a specified depth more important for the dive officer too, and in higher speeds might mean that with the AP at a safe height, only intermittent viewing is possible when close to.

There's lots of ways and means by which detection ranges can be altered or finessed. No doubt others can come up with better ones. What I feel we need to move away from is the (remain outside this distance and you cannot be seen) to one where what you are doing, your aspect to a potential viewer and the ambient lighting, all make when and where you are detected a much more fuzzy issue.

[Fidd]

181. Exponential voice attenuation with number of intervening closed hatches/doors to sound source, and ability to turn off the hydrophone operators voice tube (receive).

This one arises out of my first go operating the hydrophone. My hearing is fairly poor, but the need to establish the zero-signal point at which the gain value causes the sound of a ship is rendered all but impossible with people talking in the tower/control room. This occurs even if the control room voice-tube to the forward torpedo room is closed, and the intervening door and hatch between the hydrophone station and the control room are closed. The current implementation of sound attenuation in regard to using hydrophones is hopelessly poor, as either the entire boat has to remain silent to establish the "no signal gain value" OR, the attenuation due the number of closed intervening doors/hatches needs to become exponential; and the gain point to gauge range is changed back to the old "signal becomes over-modulated" point.

Whilst on the subject of sound, PLEASE can we make EOT bells in the diesel and engine room MUCH louder, likewise the diesel room telephone bell audible the length of the diesel room, or add a light visible whist "flaming" the engine. Ideally, I'd like to see a distinct UI for all sounds within the diesel and emotor room. The current sound system is in a hell of a mess - currently I can barely hear DC's exploding despite causing damage, and the EOT bells are likewise too quiet to be heard whilst on diesels! If one turns up either the master volume or the effects volume to the point where EOT bells can be heard, the noise of the diesels is shatteringly loud. One can argue that this is realistic, but it's not conducive to playing machinist or CE. We urgently need sound to be looked at again in several compartments, but especially in the hydrophone, diesel, and emotor room. Which might be a good argument for EVERY compartment to have it's own sliders for and sound one might hear in that compartment.