There should be an "engage sub" dialogue

Inverse Icarus · December 19, 2002, 22:48

when you're at war with someone, and you go to move onto a sea tile with a sub that you cant see, you auto-attack it.

if i'm movign a transport and i hit one, i'd want to run like hell or find an escort ship, not engage it.

?

notyoueither · December 19, 2002, 22:54

I'd have to say

Convoys don't get a choice, and neither should any ships that can't 'see' the subs.

Jaybe · December 19, 2002, 23:06

If a submarine is lying in wait, and a convoy without significant escort comes along, I would also say "Fire Torpedoes!"

Boris Godunov · December 19, 2002, 23:14

Ja, der convey ist kaput.

I think this realistically simulates the sneak attack advantage subs have.

Catt · December 19, 2002, 23:38

I'd like to see the reverse - the owner of the sub ought to have an "engage enemy" dialogue. If an escort comes along, flood the tubes; if it is a battleship, track and have a firing solution, but keep mum.

Catt

EDIT: Should say: "If a transport comes along, flood the tubes . . . "

Inverse Icarus · December 19, 2002, 23:46

didnt think about it from the enemy (in my case, AI) perspective. i guess that makes perfect sense.

Catt's suggestion sounds interesting, but wouldn't a person notice a delay when i decide to engage?

Catt · December 20, 2002, 00:11

Sure would . . . but that's my SP bias showing through (as I have little time to play MP).

Catt

planetfall · December 20, 2002, 18:37

I like Catt's ideas for SP subs.

== PF

Ps I also argee with catt on play environment. Hard to find time for SP much less MP.

MattH · December 20, 2002, 19:15

RE: Catt's idea
Do you mean when attacking a stack? It would be a great idea to be able to target a single unit in a stack. Otherwise, what is the point? The order to attack is you moving into the square (diamond?) and subs can see 1 (or is it 2) in all directions.
But anyways,

to the "sub in square" idea for previous reasons.