View Full Version : Jutland and submarines
Will this sim have AI subs or maybe even ones controlled by the player albeit to a limited degree ?
Bullethead
02 Jul 07, 20:12
Will this sim have AI subs or maybe even ones controlled by the player albeit to a limited degree ?
I'm not used to being a company man. When I see questions like this, I think "amen!", because as a customer, that's the sort of thing I want to know. And I wish I could tell you.
Deal is, at this point we can't commit to saying whether or not any given feature will or will not be in the game, or what form it will take if it does make the cut. So I'm afraid the best I can tell you at this point is that we're quite aware that subs were a significant factor in WW1 naval ops, and that we're giving the matter serious thought.
Thanks mate, my tour is almost over, cant wait to get home and start playing the game again.
Registered to delurk and give my opinion:
Please no subs. Or aircraft.
We have 1,000s of sub and a/c games. Use whatever story or plot device you want to nix the a/c and subs, and keep your focus on the big steel please. don't try to do everything and do it poorly.
We don't need yet another sub game. We don't. There's plenty to choose from. I know they were historically a factor - so what? Stay in the niche you've chosen, the niche you're filling that no-one else is. Please.
And if you DO need to bow to pressure for the dillution of your game - PLEASE give us as users, gamers, your customers, the ability to turn them OFF.
Oh and can't wait for Jutland! ....and onward to WWII ;)
Thanks
Registered to delurk and give my opinion:
Please no subs. Or aircraft.
And if you DO need to bow to pressure for the dillution of your game - PLEASE give us as users, gamers, your customers, the ability to turn them OFF.
Oh and can't wait for Jutland! ....and onward to WWII ;)
Thanks
Well told. No subs, no planes spoiling the fun please :-D. And in World War II there must be also an option "radars on/off"
Bullethead
15 Jul 07, 16:28
Well told. No subs, no planes spoiling the fun please :-D. And in World War II there must be also an option "radars on/off"
Hmmm.......
How about an option in the RJW game to turn off torpedoes? I mean, those damn tin fish utterly ruined naval warfare. There's just something immoral about letting a pathetic little torpedo boat sink a noble battleship. So no torpedoes, no torpedo boats, no destroyers, and no cluttering up my magnificent battleship decks with those annoying little popguns. No more marring my beautiful ships with those horrifically ugly nets. Just big, beautiful battleships trading broadsides at point-blank range, just like God and Nelson intended! It would be glorious!
:clown:
I feel the same way. The DG series is a naval warfare simulation, not a battleship simulation. If there were subs, there should be subs.
vertical
Subs would put a whole new side to the game, that is for sure.
You would have to commit time to looking out for them ,or sinking them.
And I am going to have to look up sub warfare in WWI to see what they had and how they searched for the subs. Because at this time I have not one idea how they did this.
Bullethead
16 Jul 07, 14:33
And I am going to have to look up sub warfare in WWI to see what they had and how they searched for the subs. Because at this time I have not one idea how they did this.
That's an interesting story in itself.
In the beginning, there were neither sonar, depth charges, nor convoys. However, subs acted under cruiser warfare prize rules so would find an isolated target, surface nearby, stop the target, and board and search it. So there were basically 2 ways to look for subs at this time: ASW patrols and Q-ships.
The ASW patrols were a major effort on both sides. Units of old DDs, TBs, trawlers, whatever, would cruise along hoping to spot subs on the surface (where they spent most of their time) and shelling them. This effort was almost totally ineffective but was used on both sides for most of the war, even after they started using convoys. However, airplanes could do this job very effectively, at least in terms of actually seeing something and forcing subs to go under, so the basic concept was sound, it's just that ships couldn't do it.
The Q-ship method, instead of actively looking for subs, let the subs come to the Q-ship. The Q-ship appeared to be a normal merchant, often under a false flag, which would ambush the sub with hidden weapons when the sub closed in to board and search. This was completely against the rules of war that the subs were trying to follow, but it was the only method that worked at the time, so it remained in use. Q-ships were thus a major reason for the Germans going to unrestricted sub warfare.
Hydrophones (passive sonar) came into use fairly early in the war. They helped find submerged subs, but was mostly useful for determining bearing. Asdic (active sonar) was available by the middle of the war. But neither was much use until depth charges were in service, which was late in 1916 for the Brits and somewhat earlier for the Germans, but most ships didn't carry but a few, so there weren't many available for the sort of prolonged hunts common in WW2. IOW, they were only really good for 1 shot at a sub you just saw dive not far away. Before depth charges, ships towed explosive sweeps in hope of dragging one into a submerged sub, but these didn't work very well. Thus, the main anti-sub tactic remained ramming, which only worked if the sub was on or just below the surface, and for which you didn't need sonar anyway.
If you couldn't kill the sub, however, you could at least try to protect yourself from it. Subs weren't very fast on the surface and were practically immobile submerged, so they were largely dependent on targets blundering into their path. The faster the target, the less likely a sub would be able to maneuver for a shot before the target got away. Thus, warships and large, fast liners cruised at fairly high speeds, which really limited the sub threat to those that by chance were lying within mile or so of the ship's course. And to minimize the risk from these, these ships zig-zagged in hopes of throwing off the subs' aim.
As an added protection, the capital ships of both sides hardly went anywhere without extensive DD screens. This was the main reason why both fleets always claimed they didn't have enough DDs. The capital ships only moved without DDs when the weather was so bad that the DDs couldn't keep up, in which case the subs wouldn't be much of a threat, either.
The idea of the DD screen was not to kill subs or even actively search for them (the fleet wasn't going to stop while the DD hunted a sighted sub) but to prevent the subs from getting a shot off. The DDs were thus positioned in the places the subs would have to be to launch torps at the capital ships (IOW, about 1000m out on both flanks and about the same distance ahead). The hope was that at least having DDs there would divide the sub's attention and thus hopefully make it miss if it did get a shot off. Best case, the sub would keep its periscope down and thus be unable to shoot at all. And of course, having DDs right where the subs would be increased the odds of the DDs spotting the subs, which they could then ram or drop depth charges on as they passed over. But the main use for spotting the subs was to warn the capital ships, which could then alter course away.
Thanks Bullethead I did not have an Idea how they did this at the first of the war.
I am not surprised that they got the sonar and stuff going so quick. I just did some reading on the subs of that era and from what I have found out , for them to even hit a ship was a BIG matter of luck. They did not have any way to aim the torpedo other than a learned guess on when to fire ( The skill of the Capt,n ).
The ship had to be almost stopped or at slow speed. And the merchants of that time did go slow. At least most seemed to have done this.
I am going to the library Tuesday to get some books on WWI and the Subs of that time. I checked and they do have some, so that will give me a heads up on this.
I have studied on the types of WWII and the years before back to the 30's ,But not WWI.
Having spent some time reading on the torpedo,s of that time and I can see that even if you happened to get a hit with a torpedo there was a very good chance that it would not even detonate , much less sink the ship if it did.
They did make some strides toward the middle of the war on the torpedo's though. Where at least if you got a hit , the damage to the ship would be enough to at least give a good go at sinking it.
The sighting setup on the ships was not much better as I see. They had a torpedo table that was as large as a dinner table with a angle slider and ranging system to use, and there data tables that they started the war out with where not very good, but I see where they dumped those quickly and went to a new data table that had been done by the U.S and U.K Navies .
So far I have not found any data on the German systems yet, but hope to Tuesday.
If you know of any books that might be in the library that I can get , let me know please. I do not have the funds to go and buy any so I just go and borrow them from the library and copy the data that I need to work with. :) As it is I like to learn there systems and data tables so I can see and get more of a feel how they worked and where used. Yea I know crazy but it gives me something to do.
Bullethead
17 Jul 07, 03:27
I have found out , for them to even hit a ship was a BIG matter of luck. They did not have any way to aim the torpedo other than a learned guess on when to fire ( The skill of the Capt,n ).
The ship had to be almost stopped or at slow speed. And the merchants of that time did go slow. At least most seemed to have done this.
In the early pre-war subs (say 1905-1910), yes, things were that bad. Not to mention many early subs used gasoline engines which resulted in explosions, or their early diesels weren't reliable. Some of these old boats were still in service in 1914-16, although mostly as trainers.
Modern subs of WW1, however, were pretty good with torps. They had the same sorts of gizmos that surface ships had for figuring speed and gyro settings; their main problem was having to look through a periscope instead of some binocular rangefinder. But it worked pretty well for them. They could even hit fast ships. For example, the CL Nottingham was hit by 3 torps while doing 20 knots in Aug 1916. And the most successful sub of all time was a WW1 U-boat.
The main disadvantage WW1 subs had compared to WW2 subs (besides a generation earlier fire control) was a smaller number of tubes and torps in many cases. Subs built during the war often had 4 forward tubes, but most of the earlier ones only had 2. And they didn't have that many reloads. Thus, many subs definitely prefered slow targets, because they could usually only shoot 1 or 2 torps in a "spread". For the same reason, they liked to be at pretty close range.
All that said, however, subs on anti-commerce missions often didn't use torps at all. Instead, they'd board and plant demo charges or use the deck gun. That way, they could stay on patrol longer and save the torps for warships or things that weren't safe to approach, or which they couldn't catch, on the surface. That's another reason subs liked slow targets :). It also shows that folks like Scheer gave up on prize rules for subs too quickly. It did in fact work fairly well even with the Q-ship threat.
Having spent some time reading on the torpedo,s of that time and I can see that even if you happened to get a hit with a torpedo there was a very good chance that it would not even detonate , much less sink the ship if it did.
Both sides had problems with torp reliability, at least early in the war, for the same reasons folks had problems in WW2. Basically, they didn't shoot enough live rounds. Torps are expensive so they tried not to damage them in training. Thus, the Brits did their practice without warheads in the torps so they could pick them up for re-use. But nobody realized that the torps would run deeper with the warhead aboard. This caused many torps to go under targets during the first few months. OTOH, the Germans didn't do many practice shots at all, because they wanted to avoid corrosion in the motors. Thus, their torps had more bugs in them because there wasn't as much chance to work them out. Depth-keeping was the main problem, apparently. They often went low like the Brits' or they stayed on the surface and were easier to dodge.
But when torps hit, they usually caused serious problems. Thousands of merchant ships went down to them, after all ;). So did many predreadnought BBs and ACs, quite of few of which blew up and/or capsized very quickly. Against more modern ships, torps weren't as effective. No dreadnought was sunk by one, although most of those hit were German and they had better underwater protection. A few CLs and even DDs survived torp hits, although usually with serious damage.
They did make some strides toward the middle of the war on the torpedo's though. Where at least if you got a hit , the damage to the ship would be enough to at least give a good go at sinking it.
I've been amazed at the performance of WW1 torps. By Jutland, the average surface ship torps had 2 range/speed settings, and these were on the order of 4-5000m/35 knots and 8-10,000m/28 knots or thereabouts. The Brits even had a super long-range setting for some torps, like about 17000m/18 knots. 1918 torps were even faster. And they had very respectable warheads. This is almost on a par with WW2 torps! Subs usually carried torps that had shorter range, but they could still reach out and touch you. Folks used to the puny range and low power of RJW torps will have some tactical adjustments to make ;).
If you know of any books that might be in the library that I can get , let me know please.
You might look for British Submarines in the Great War, by Edwyn Gray. It's not much on the technical stuff, it's mostly a collection of war stories. However, these stories do give a good idea for the constraints and limitations of WW1 subs. I like the book because most of the focus on subs in both world wars is on U-boats, so it's nice to know what the Brit subs were up to :).
Thanks for getting back to this post, now I know where I am on the data and what I need to learn. I was reading about subs and I looked and found that I was reading about pre WWI subs.
I ought to get caught up now and be on par with what was going on when the game is out. That way I will not be guessing on what was and what was not!
Thanks for the help
There is one important thing one has to remember about German subs and unrestricted submarine warfare. It were the British who first violated the rules of war, by their total blockade of Germany, not Germans who sent their U-Boots to hunt for British trade. The problem was that a sunk ship went down with it's crew and passengers, often American citizens, thus creating an outrage in American press. When British ships prevented a cargo of food from getting to Germany via Netherlands, the resulting starvation was not obvious, and as such, it was not a news for the press.
I usually find it annoying when (luckily, not on this forum) World War I is shown as a struggle between the good democracy (the Entente) and the bad Germany.
Despite the sarcasm and arguement of extreme, the reality remains that you can omit an element of historical accuracy and have an excellent title. Likewise you can throw too many ingredients in and degrade an otherwise excellent recipe.
I put out as an example, Steel Beasts. One of the best if not the best armored simulations available. And it doesn't model aircraft. (in any depth)
Ask the gents over at simhq if they feel the title has significantly suffered for it.
Focus can breed excellence and fun.
Bullethead
17 Jul 07, 15:27
I usually find it annoying when (luckily, not on this forum) World War I is shown as a struggle between the good democracy (the Entente) and the bad Germany.
The only nation involved in the whole mess with which I have any sympathy is Austria-Hungary. Seems to me they were trying to handle an internal problem but others butted in. Then another layer, with no interest in the initial problem, chipped in just to settle old grudges. Then the next circle jumped in thinking to grab some spoils but usually lost more than they gained. And finally some others (like the US) jumped in for no really compelling reason. And all they did was to sow the seeds for the next war. Meanwhile, Austria-Hungary ceased to exist. It's kinda sad.
The only nation involved in the whole mess with which I have any sympathy is Austria-Hungary. Seems to me they were trying to handle an internal problem but others butted in. Then another layer, with no interest in the initial problem, chipped in just to settle old grudges. Then the next circle jumped in thinking to grab some spoils but usually lost more than they gained. And finally some others (like the US) jumped in for no really compelling reason. And all they did was to sow the seeds for the next war. Meanwhile, Austria-Hungary ceased to exist. It's kinda sad.
The world was at the brink of change. As I see it the kingdoms that where still leading the countries of Europe where locked in a family fight. From study, most if not all where related to each other and seemed to want what the others had. ( Grass greener on the other side). And like it was said all it would take is a spark to bring them to a full fight.
The smaller battles had already started in the Balkan countries .
Where there was a great distrust of the leaders.
The War was bound to happen sooner or later, as it was sooner than later.
We will most likely never know what really went on in the minds of the people and or why things really happened the way they did, but I think no matter who started what first the world would have been drug in screaming and kicking anyway.
The only nation involved in the whole mess with which I have any sympathy is Austria-Hungary. Seems to me they were trying to handle an internal problem but others butted in. Then another layer, with no interest in the initial problem, chipped in just to settle old grudges. Then the next circle jumped in thinking to grab some spoils but usually lost more than they gained. And finally some others (like the US) jumped in for no really compelling reason. And all they did was to sow the seeds for the next war. Meanwhile, Austria-Hungary ceased to exist. It's kinda sad.
You would be surprised, but there is some pro-Austro-Hungarian sentiment in Poland, especially in former Galicia, ie. the parts of current Poland and Ukraine, which belonged to the Habsburg Monarchy till 1918. After 1867 the monarchy has given autonomy to all the provinces, and all the persecution of minorities practically ceased. I had a good laugh when I read in one of Massie's books, that in Austria-Hungary Slavs had no importance - whereas in reality Poles (and other Slavs) were often cabinet ministers and prime ministers, generals in the army ect.
Sadly, such a state in the age of raging nationalisms was bound to break up. Now we are laboriously building the EU :-D
Personally, I have an "irracional" sentiment for Germany. Ironically, in order for my country to be revived in 1918-1920, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia had to lose. However, in one of the books I translated to Polish, the authors wrote that a German victory in world war I would might have turned out far better for the world than the actual result of the war - the ill-conceived Versailles peace, the rise of Hitler and all that.
You would be surprised, but there is some pro-Austro-Hungarian sentiment in Poland, especially in former Galicia, ie. the parts of current Poland and Ukraine, which belonged to the Habsburg Monarchy till 1918. After 1867 the monarchy has given autonomy to all the provinces, and all the persecution of minorities practically ceased. I had a good laugh when I read in one of Massie's books, that in Austria-Hungary Slavs had no importance - whereas in reality Poles (and other Slavs) were often cabinet ministers and prime ministers, generals in the army ect.
Sadly, such a state in the age of raging nationalisms was bound to break up. Now we are laboriously building the EU :-D
Personally, I have an "irracional" sentiment for Germany. Ironically, in order for my country to be revived in 1918-1920, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia had to lose. However, in one of the books I translated to Polish, the authors wrote that a German victory in world war I would might have turned out far better for the world than the actual result of the war - the ill-conceived Versailles peace, the rise of Hitler and all that.
I have to agree with you on this, when the war was over the world just walked away and went on with there lives. And look at the outcome of doing this.
WWII , most of the world was thrown into a great depression that lasted for over 20 years. The way I look at it WWI never was over, the world just took 20 years to rearm and rebuild there army's so they could get if finished.
Thats a very interesting idea that I admit I never considered: would it have been better for the world if Germany had won in WWI? Hmm. Food for thought indeed.
I suppose its important to define "win" first.
There is one important thing one has to remember about German subs and unrestricted submarine warfare. It were the British who first violated the rules of war, by their total blockade of Germany, not Germans who sent their U-Boots to hunt for British trade. The problem was that a sunk ship went down with it's crew and passengers, often American citizens, thus creating an outrage in American press. When British ships prevented a cargo of food from getting to Germany via Netherlands, the resulting starvation was not obvious, and as such, it was not a news for the press.
I usually find it annoying when (luckily, not on this forum) World War I is shown as a struggle between the good democracy (the Entente) and the bad Germany.
try saying that on other (war-related) forums and you'll be sorry.
I find that just as annoying as you. I'm afraid that's history how it is taught, the impression we get, and we should do our very best to make others understand Germany (regarding WW I) was no different from all other superpowers. Indeed, annoying, when they refer to the allies as "lands of peace"... if onlythose dumb inane leaders had listened to Wilson's advice. (don't punish Germany too hard, you'll regret it)
Germany itself was the strongest party of the first World War, she only had 3 partners (and not really the most powerful) and had to struggle against a large part of the world. In spite of all this: France got seriously clobbered, Britain almost succumbed to the unrestricted submarine warfare, Russia was warded off.
it's just that fond trust in "we beat Germany", we're great --> 3/5th of the world against Germany and 3 peanuts, and it cost so many efforts, that's rather something to be ashamed of...
It's a pity that a despicable individual someone like Hitler succeeded in executing his madness (he keeps holding Germans in low esteem still today), but if there had not been a WWII in 1939, there surely would have been one some or many years later ('cause things were just not going right). After 1945 we finally learned our lessons (it seems, I may hope :p)
If you think about it, isn't it strange? Not very long ago Europe was one big puddle of emnity, and now those ex-superpowers are working together. Good news, at last...
:clown:
sorry ;) ontopic: submarines would be great, and I think Storm Eagle Studios is fond of REALISM, so they should be included, but of course this needn't become a submarine sim.... stick to the beautiful surface fleet :smoke: :smoke:
Bullethead
18 Jul 07, 00:53
If you think about it, isn't it strange? Not very long ago Europe was one big puddle of emnity, and now those ex-superpowers are working together. Good news, at last...
In my youth during the Cold War, there was a lot of talk about how every 400-500 years there's been a huge war that's brought down the existing social order in chaos, resulting in something of a Dark Age for a while. Those who went around saying this looked at the calendar and figured we were due for it any day, in a nuclear holocaust. I always thought they'd missed the mark--the Great Crash had already happened and we were then (and still are) in the ensuing Dark Age.
WW1 as the Great Crash IMHO. The German, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman Empires all disappeared overnight, the Russian Empire collapsed into anarchy and civil war, and the British and French Empires died of their wounds shortly thereafter. How can the extinction of so many empires all at once, and the entire social structure and global mental outlook that went with them, not have been the Great Crash? The Dark Age began immediately the dust had settled, with the usual assortment of barbarous strongmen arising from the wreckage and terrorizing much of the world for a time before themselves succombing and being replaced by others. Hence WW2, the Cold War, the war on terror, and everything in between. No wonder the world seems crazy, no wonder there's a worldwide loss of faith in traditional institutions. D'oh! We're living in the new Dark Ages. Now everything makes sense :D.
In my youth during the Cold War, there was a lot of talk about how every 400-500 years there's been a huge war that's brought down the existing social order in chaos, resulting in something of a Dark Age for a while. Those who went around saying this looked at the calendar and figured we were due for it any day, in a nuclear holocaust. I always thought they'd missed the mark--the Great Crash had already happened and we were then (and still are) in the ensuing Dark Age.
WW1 as the Great Crash IMHO. The German, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman Empires all disappeared overnight, the Russian Empire collapsed into anarchy and civil war, and the British and French Empires died of their wounds shortly thereafter. How can the extinction of so many empires all at once, and the entire social structure and global mental outlook that went with them, not have been the Great Crash? The Dark Age began immediately the dust had settled, with the usual assortment of barbarous strongmen arising from the wreckage and terrorizing much of the world for a time before themselves succombing and being replaced by others. Hence WW2, the Cold War, the war on terror, and everything in between. No wonder the world seems crazy, no wonder there's a worldwide loss of faith in traditional institutions. D'oh! We're living in the new Dark Ages. Now everything makes sense :D.
a very bright résumé :)
First, the on-topic reply: Yes, it would be very cool to have submarines, especially U-boats, in Jutland. (Three words: Cressy, Aboukir, Hogue.) :) I don't mind if I as the surface fleet commander don't have full control of subs, but they definitely should be in the game.
***
And then the off-topic stuff: I agree with Bullethead; WW1 was the Great Crash, everything that came after was just continuation of that great conflict left unfinished.
Imperial Germany was not the evil empire Hitler and his cronies later created of Nazi Germany. In fact you can say that early 20th century Germany was politically, socially, economically and scientifically one of the most advanced, if not the most advanced, nation in the world. If I observe history only from the narrow viewpoint of my own homeland, Finland, the best thing the Germans did in the First World War was to defeat Imperial Russia, thereby making it possible for former Russian occupied territories to gain their independence. And Germans also helped the Finnish government forces to defeat the Socialist rebels in our short but bloody civil war in 1918, though not without cost; if the Germans had won the war, we would have got a German prince as our king and our economy would have been dominated by Germany. So in retrospect, we got a good deal out of the Great War. Curious are the workings of history and governments...
asheshouse
19 Jul 07, 10:15
Subs were certainly a significant factor in influencing fleet actions in WWI, although they were rarely effective. Most High Seas Fleet sorties featured a pre positioned submarine screen intended to catch Grand Fleet ships as they came out. Destroyer screens were essential to force subs to lower periscopes and dive. By the time they came back up to periscope depth the chance of a strike had passed. At Jutland one of the reasons that Jellico was unable to directly follow up the High Seas Fleet when it turned away may have been a fear that he was being lead over a submarine patrol line, or that he would run into mines dropped from the fleeing German fleet. Without submarines these contraints on tactics wont exist which is likely to result in unrealistic actions.
Bullethead
19 Jul 07, 12:30
At Jutland one of the reasons that Jellico was unable to directly follow up the High Seas Fleet when it turned away may have been a fear that he was being lead over a submarine patrol line, or that he would run into mines dropped from the fleeing German fleet. Without submarines these contraints on tactics wont exist which is likely to result in unrealistic actions.
Quite true. At Jutland, many ships on both sides reported so many sub sightings (all of which during the actual battle were bogus) that it's obvious everybody was fixated on them. OTOH, there WERE subs around the area, and they did make contact with the fleets before and after the fight. Although most of the German subs didn't get the word to be off the Brit bases in time, or got there too late, there were a few in place. One of them off Rosyth had a go at Beatty's ships coming out, but was driven off by CLs trying to ram it. Another spotted Jerram's boys coming out of Cromarty but was unable to attack. And as Warspite and Marlborough limped home alone, both were attacked and only narrowly missed just outside of port. IIRC, 1 or 2 Brit subs were sniffing around the HSF as it got close to home, too.
After Jutland, the Germans switched from concentrating subs off Brit bases to putting them in patrol lines across the North Sea, in places where the action might go. This worked better. When the HSF came out in August 1916, the pursuing GF ran over one of these sub lines and lost 2 CLs, even though the 2 fleets never saw each other. The Brits did something similar and actually torpedoed 2 German BBs during another HSF sortie. So yeah, WW1 subs really were a serious threat, which explains the paranoia about them on both sides.
Bullethead I have to agree with you on the Dark Ages. I think we are in the dark ages just as the world was after Rome Fell. And they will not even see this till the world steps out .
Bullethead
19 Jul 07, 20:21
Bullethead I have to agree with you on the Dark Ages. I think we are in the dark ages just as the world was after Rome Fell. And they will not even see this till the world steps out .
And I agree with you on this point. I've often thought that the folks in the late AD400s, who lived anywhere except Rome itself, mostly shrugged off the fall of Rome and were much more worried about their own problems. I mean, when Rome was sacked, it wasn't the capital of the empire any more, and many of the provinces were under barbarian control already, although these barbarians purported to run the provinces for the empire. I figure that they, like us, didn't realize the major change had happened already and were all anxiously awaiting the apocalypse in their own time :).
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.