Is it me or the game is a little bit too easy?

[xXNightEagleXx]

I mean unless you fall into the obvious fixed wing bug (you can see that its patrol path falls always on the spot right above your sub, too much coincidence) the AI doesn't seem to do much to escape from my torpedoes.

I cannot confirm whether or not for a surface vessel is easy to avoid my incoming torpedo since i can't control any surface vessel to test it, but i do control a sub and yes it is possible to escape from a torpedo. However the ai seems to be doomed, once i fire they will be surely dead.
At this point the game starts to become a 'just shot that you will get them'.

I hope improvements on this side will be done, no one need artificial difficulties coming from god AI but neither easy gameplay coming from dumb AI.

[Julhelm]

Can make the torpedoes noisier again.

[xXNightEagleXx]

Can make the torpedoes noisier again.

Honestly all i can say is do what do you think is best to either satisfy both casual gamers and more expert (perhaps both options), hard core, gamers but please just do not increase/add artificial difficulties (giving them god powers) just to counterbalance any ai lack.

[Stardog765]

Yes realism here please. Very very important.

[Onkel Neal]

Keep playing, I've seen a lot of examples of subs and ships evading my weapons


And try increasing the difficulty level

[xXNightEagleXx]

Keep playing, I've seen a lot of examples of subs and ships evading my weapons


And try increasing the difficulty level

Already on hard, will try the other one.

[xXNightEagleXx]

I'll keep playing but by checking the config file i can see this:

[Difficulty Settings]
//Easy, Normal, Hard, Elite
PlayerHullPoints=2,1,0.9,0.75
EnemyHullPoints=0.75,1,1.125,1.25
PlayerNoiseModifier=0.9,1,1.05,1.1
EnemyNoiseModifier=1.1,1,0.95,0.9
PlayerTMARate=1.2,1,1,0.85
EnemyTMARate=0.85,1,1,1.2
CombatRepairTimeModifier=0.8,1,1.5,2
PlayerWeaponReloadTime=0.8,1,1.5,2

[Difficulty Settings Campaign]
StartPointsModifier=1.2,1,0.8,0.6
WinMissionModifier=1.2,1,0.75,0.5
FailMissionModifier=1.2,1,0.75,0.5
TonnageSunkModifier=1.2,1,0.75,0.5
TimeInPortModifier=0.8,1,1.2,1.5
RestockTimeModifier=0.8,1,2,3
RepairTimeModifier=0.8,1,2,3
RescueTimeModifier=0.8,1,2,3
NumberOfASW=1,2,3,4


Which leads me to the conclusion that maybe increasing the difficulty to elite will just result in artificial difficulty (eg. giving the AI TMA advantages) unless current state is unbalanced toward the player.

Onkel Neal, what's your difficulty settings?

[PL_Harpoon]

I did some testing on the enemy ability to dodge missiles.
First, I modded my sub's sonar (increased tenfold) and TMA speed so I can always see what he's doing. I also removed tubes from enemy sub so I don't need to worry about his torpedoes.

All tests were against a Victor III on hard difficulty.

Here are the results:

Test #1:

http://oi63.tinypic.com/30tgq6u.jpg

I think the image speaks for itself here. What's interesting is that while trying to dig himself in the seabed he was still dropping noisemakers (which stayed at his position, obviously) so the torpedo while trying to avoid the noisemaker was in turn deliberately avoiding the sub. I had to steer it into the ship manually to sink it. Anyway, turns out it could be a bizarre defensive tactic :Kaleun_Wink: .

Test #2:

http://oi66.tinypic.com/ay916w.jpg

This time he was a bit more successful. He fooled the torpedo twice with noisemakers and then took a wrong turn and went straight into a torpedo. What's interesting is that he didn't even try any manoeuvres in vertical plane.

Test #3

http://oi65.tinypic.com/2arxac.jpg

You can see here that just like before, he turned away from the torpedo, let it get a bit closer then dropped a noisemaker and turned away (this time to the right). Still no up/down movements. Unfortunately the torpedo also turned right to avoid the noisemaker...
http://oi68.tinypic.com/208egls.jpg

So he ran straight into it.

Test #4:

http://oi68.tinypic.com/20q1k00.jpg

Some manoeuvring in vertical plane this time. Unfortunately seems the AI has problems with manual controls too ;) . What's also strange here that it was a poor shot on my part and the torpedo never acquired. Also his surfacing move wasn't coupled with any course changes. In fact after a while he submerged again, continuing the same snake pattern in the same direction. Perhaps he actually didn't even detect the torpedo and this surfacing is some other issue.

Test #5:

http://oi63.tinypic.com/21cavza.jpg

Same tactics as before. Noisemaker and horizontal turn in a random direction. This time again straight into the torpedo.

My conclusion: there's definitely room for improvements here. The only examples when he was moving up/down happened before the torpedo has acquired. As soon as it did, his techniques were pretty consistent: turn tail, wait for torpedo to close in, drop a noisemaker and do a hard turn in a random direction.

My advice would be to add a simple check for available vertical space. If there's lots then do a sharp dive/ascend (depending on it's current depth). If there's only a couple hundred feet then perhaps go as low as possible first and then move up after dropping noisemaker.
I'm sure you could add a lot more options but these are relatively quick fixes.

[xXNightEagleXx]

...

Thanks for this effort. I bet that we can help devs to improve this good product.

PS: the same test should be done in Elite just to make sure

[Lanzfeld]

Great testing!

From reading those config files I think I'll just play on normal as it only seems to modify hull strength, TMA time, loudness, etc. I think the real key to making the game realistic is to adjust the sensors instead of the game difficulty

[xXNightEagleXx]

Great testing!

From reading those config files I think I'll just play on normal as it only seems to modify hull strength, TMA time, loudness, etc. I think the real key to making the game realistic is to adjust the sensors instead of the game difficulty

sensors and evasive maneuvers. Maybe the AI does some good maneuver evasive from time to time, but it should be more consistent

[Julhelm]

The enemy subs use the same controls as the player, and during testing they had (and evidently still have) major issues with staying away from the terrain. So their vertical manuevers were removed, but this doesn't seem to have helped.

[-Pv-]

AI avoiding terrain seems to plague every sea based game I've ever played. I've always thought the main thing neglected is prediction- the AI knowing what's ahead a reasonable distance and taking corrective action in time for it to be effective.
-Pv-

[YoYo]

I mean unless you fall into the obvious fixed wing bug (you can see that its patrol path falls always on the spot right above your sub, too much coincidence) the AI doesn't seem to do much to escape from my torpedoes.

I cannot confirm whether or not for a surface vessel is easy to avoid my incoming torpedo since i can't control any surface vessel to test it, but i do control a sub and yes it is possible to escape from a torpedo. However the ai seems to be doomed, once i fire they will be surely dead.
At this point the game starts to become a 'just shot that you will get them'.

I hope improvements on this side will be done, no one need artificial difficulties coming from god AI but neither easy gameplay coming from dumb AI.

Take 5th mission (SP) with Kirov (Beating the odds). You will change Your mind very quickly. :D

[Skwabie]

^aye, 1 on 1 the AI is a joke, however the AI has many and player is always 1.

[xXNightEagleXx]

AI avoiding terrain seems to plague every sea based game I've ever played. I've always thought the main thing neglected is prediction- the AI knowing what's ahead a reasonable distance and taking corrective action in time for it to be effective.
-Pv-

For really unknown reasons since collision avoidance is used by many games in much more complex geometry than a simply ocean bottom

[xXNightEagleXx]

AI avoiding terrain seems to plague every sea based game I've ever played. I've always thought the main thing neglected is prediction- the AI knowing what's ahead a reasonable distance and taking corrective action in time for it to be effective.
-Pv-

^aye, 1 on 1 the AI is a joke, however the AI has many and player is always 1.

Unless you play in a very arcade way, you want to preserve the distance specially against multiple targets. if you collect all data possible, prepare the attack, preserve the distance and your stealth factor you will just snipe them one by one, since your torpedoes are infallible, sometime without any backfire. This stands for both surface and submarine AI.

I hope this game improve on this side otherwise this will easily become a game that will not hold me for too long.

I don't know maybe cold war submarine era conflicts would result in something like this, if so then it is not for me, or this game simply does somethings greatly and others poorly breaking the overall result (for me). I wasn't expecting any station simulation from this game but i was expecting a fully simulated warfare which at first doesn't seem to do.

[pccl]

The enemy subs use the same controls as the player, and during testing they had (and evidently still have) major issues with staying away from the terrain. So their vertical manuevers were removed, but this doesn't seem to have helped.


Interesting, does the enemy sub not have an idea as to how deep the floor is? If they do, I can't imagine staying away would be too difficult....

Also, I've had a few enemy subs (I think trying to evade my torpedos) dive way deep then sinking themselves, presumably from implosion... Is that a part of the whole "major issue staying away from terrain" thing?

Either way, that's a real big shame.... vertical maneuvering is a huge part of evading torpedoes, without the ability to do that enemy submarines are sitting ducks unless they can outrun your torps

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I mean unless you fall into the obvious fixed wing bug (you can see that its patrol path falls always on the spot right above your sub, too much coincidence) the AI doesn't seem to do much to escape from my torpedoes.

Sometimes, I think that too. However, I'm also careful in what I'm wishing for. If the enemy submarines actually start pulling off evasions with consistent skill, they'll become nearly unsinkable because precise timing is an area where a AI with the correct algorithm can easily beat a human on (especially since you are ONE and can only threaten them from basically one direction at a time). Then people would start thinking whether they can beat the game at all if they need to throw 10 torpedoes to sink one sub, and there are usually three of them.

[subunit]

Sometimes, I think that too. However, I'm also careful in what I'm wishing for. If the enemy submarines actually start pulling off evasions with consistent skill, they'll become nearly unsinkable because precise timing is an area where a AI with the correct algorithm can easily beat a human on (especially since you are ONE and can only threaten them from basically one direction at a time). Then people would start thinking whether they can beat the game at all if they need to throw 10 torpedoes to sink one sub, and there are usually three of them.

They're having difficulty getting AI subs not to plow into the seafloor, crush themselves, or surface inappropriately. I don't think there's much risk that they're going to write a perfect torpedo evasion algorithm that works against multiple independently guided weapons. It's definitely possible to threaten from multiple directions by bracketing the enemy and create "no-win" situations barring guidance failures.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

They're having difficulty getting AI subs not to plow into the seafloor, crush themselves, or surface inappropriately. I don't think there's much risk that they're going to write a perfect torpedo evasion algorithm that works against multiple independently guided weapons. It's definitely possible to threaten from multiple directions by bracketing the enemy and create "no-win" situations barring guidance failures.

Yes, in real life, you can set torpedoes to come from different directions. However, I don't dare do any of those "off-angle" tactics in Cold Waters ... the wires keep breaking. Everyone else tells me they don't really break that much, but somewhere between 25-50% of my wires break.

And yes, obviously they have to work on the algorithm. Right now it is buggy. But the day when they get rid of the bugs might be the day when it suddenly becomes "too perfect".

[Delgard]

I found the .txt files in /streamingassets/default and modified the systems as they are being discussed here for better accuracy. Being new, I also gave my current favorite boat (688i) a boost in ability. As I get used to the keys and GUI I get less immediate death.

I did save the original copies of the .txt (sensors, vessels, aircraft, etc.) into the "Override" folder that I made. I think that is the intent...let me know if I am incorrect in my understanding.

I am still having a little trouble controlling my torpedoes. I have made sure that my keypad is in Numlock mode, but still can't seem to control the torpedo like rising and dropping in depth, etc.

Anyway, being able to modify the system parameters lets me play at my skill level. I have been watching all the YouTube videos, but no one says what key they are actually pressing. They probably should not really have to, though.

Good luck!

[Julhelm]

They're having difficulty getting AI subs not to plow into the seafloor, crush themselves, or surface inappropriately. I don't think there's much risk that they're going to write a perfect torpedo evasion algorithm that works against multiple independently guided weapons. It's definitely possible to threaten from multiple directions by bracketing the enemy and create "no-win" situations barring guidance failures.
Problem with AI is that you have to have appropriate tools to efficiently debug it. We now have such tools, so expect the AI to be overhauled.

[pccl]

that's great news Julhelm, looking forward to it!

[shipkiller1]

Here are some real world enhancements you could incorporate. These remarks are good for the 1980 to 1994 time frame.. Without getting into classification/security issues.

US boats need to be quieter. In real life, you could get really close with out being counter detected if your crew was good.

Engine order telegraph has five standard speeds:
1/3rd - 5kts
2/3rds - 10kts
Standard - 15kts
Full - 21kts approx.
Flank - as fast as you can go.

There is also back 1/3, 2/3, full. I do not think incorporating these backing bells would add much to game play.

In all but the quietest Soviets boats, you normally do not loose track at a 2/3rds bell (10 knots), sometimes even at a standard bell depending on the contact.

US Submarine detection ranges on surface ships are too short. The Fire Control Systems and its operators can generate a solution on a surface ship quickly. You almost always have a ballpark figure for the target speed based on blade rate and sonar will report this.

Towed array ranges are also too short, but I think that these are not utilized in the current version of the game.

Periscope depth starts around 68ft, depending on sea state. The top of the sail skims the surface at 50ft.

This is a BIG error: US Submarines can launch a torpedo at ANY speed.

Torpedo guidance wires are not a fragile as in the game. You can keep your wires at higher speeds.

If your wire is good, once a torpedo detects a contact or starts homing, it reports back contact range, course and speed as referenced from ownship. Thats not all but it is enough for a game simulation.

I posted this in another thread but I'll reiterate:
688's come in four (4) flights.

688-699 - Flt 1 (all first flights were upgraded to flt2's in their first major yard period)
700-718 - Flt 2
719-750 - Flt 3 (The first VLS boats)
751-773 - Flt 4 (also know as 688I's.)
No fairwater planes. Bow plane incorporated. FireControl and Sonar upgraded to BSY-1. An upgrade from BQQ-5. Incorporated a 6" countermeasure launcher in addition to the standard 3" launcher.
.
.
.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

US boats need to be quieter. In real life, you could get really close with out being counter detected if your crew was good. In all but the quietest Soviets boats, you normally do not loose track at a 2/3rds bell (10 knots), sometimes even at a standard bell depending on the contact.

You can track many subs at 2/3rds bell. It depends on their speed of motion.

You are not the first person I see claiming both actual experience and that the American subs should have more acoustic advantage. Gameplay aside, having integrated testimonies from both the Soviet and Americans, the impression I get is that the Americans did have an acoustic advantage, and there are days and scenarios when they can indeed get very close. But overall they probably overestimated the degree of advantage they had - my post on this issue from 2011.

Yeah, read that book years back & it was an eye-opener. My perception is that the American superiority is more in the system more than the individual boats. Leaving aside the vague issue of training, SOSUS turned the undersea fight into one b/w a side with "AWACS" and a side without.

Another factor is that the Americans started really deploying rafting in their Permits in 1960 or so, while the Soviets started in 1972. That ensured a large glut of noisy Soviet submarines, and that pulled up the "national average" (and thus the American perception) of Soviet submarine noise and vice versa.

A third factor is that the Soviets seem to know when they are losing more than the West gives them credit for. In Blind Man's Bluff, there is a section where the Soviet Admiral let slip he was near USS Dace in a Victor I. Sontag tries to make it an issue of who trailed whom, and of course the American, which had an acoustical superiority, and who presumably waited in an ambush position, had the edge in that fight.

IMO, Sontag misses the point, which is that the Soviets had managed a counterdetection, even if it was late, and the Americans don't seem to know about it. Winning is better than losing, but in ASW warfare, managing to know when you've lost is a massive step up from not knowing, and not realizing that your victory is not quite complete is in itself a fair loss.

Towed array ranges are also too short, but I think that these are not utilized in the current version of the game.

They are not implemented in their final form, but they are there, simplified.

Periscope depth starts around 68ft, depending on sea state. The top of the sail skims the surface at 50ft.

As I understand it, it is 68 feet counts from the bottom of the sub, and this game seems to count from the "middle" of the boat.

This is a BIG error: US Submarines can launch a torpedo at ANY speed.

I'm actually inclined to believe the variant where they can't. When looking at a Soviet submarine, you may notice its tubes are at the top of the bow and fire straight out. There were actually proposals to move the tubes to the "American" position so the bow can go for a big spherical sonar (and trying to get as much aperture for the sonar as possible is undoubtedly important to the Soviets with their noisier subs and less advanced electronics). The current form is selected because the calculated speed limit was 11 knots. It is a Path Not Taken for the Soviets and AFAIK the American limit was higher (18 knots IIRC), probably due to improvments made in optimizing this mode of launch, but the Americans are not immune from hydrodynamics.

Torpedo guidance wires are not a fragile as in the game. You can keep your wires at higher speeds.

If your wire is good, once a torpedo detects a contact or starts homing, it reports back contact range, course and speed as referenced from ownship. Thats not all but it is enough for a game simulation.

I agree. Those stupid wires can break a little less. I've stopped my sub and they still break.

688-699 - Flt 1 (all first flights were upgraded to flt2's in their first major yard period)
700-718 - Flt 2.

Which are all the subs actually in the game.

[jenrick]

I'm actually inclined to believe the variant where they can't. When looking at a Soviet submarine, you may notice its tubes are at the top of the bow and fire straight out. There were actually proposals to move the tubes to the "American" position so the bow can go for a big spherical sonar (and trying to get as much aperture for the sonar as possible is undoubtedly important to the Soviets with their noisier subs and less advanced electronics). The current form is selected because the calculated speed limit was 11 knots. It is a Path Not Taken for the Soviets and AFAIK the American limit was higher (18 knots IIRC), probably due to improvments made in optimizing this mode of launch, but the Americans are not immune from hydrodynamics.

I'm intrigued with this here. What specifically are you referring to in reference to hydrodynamics? The movement of the water over the hull basically torquing the torpedo as it exits from the tube? I'm not a fluid engineer, but I'd be tempted to say that it wouldn't be difficult to have a strake, bump, etc to create an area of low pressure to allow the torpedo to exit the tube with no issue. Shoot even some carefully crafted irregularity at the tube opening when the door is opened could create the effect. It's not like the torpedo is exit the tube at 90 degree's, depending on the exact exit path it might have as little as 25" or so of surface area exposed to the drag of the water. If some fancy engineering can be brought into play the drag forces (and hence torque) would be minimal.

-Jenrick

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I'm intrigued with this here. What specifically are you referring to in reference to hydrodynamics? The movement of the water over the hull basically torquing the torpedo as it exits from the tube? I'm not a fluid engineer, but I'd be tempted to say that it wouldn't be difficult to have a strake, bump, etc to create an area of low pressure to allow the torpedo to exit the tube with no issue. Shoot even some carefully crafted irregularity at the tube opening when the door is opened could create the effect. It's not like the torpedo is exit the tube at 90 degree's, depending on the exact exit path it might have as little as 25" or so of surface area exposed to the drag of the water. If some fancy engineering can be brought into play the drag forces (and hence torque) would be minimal.

-Jenrick

I'm not going to pretend I'm any kind of hydrodynamics expert, but as I understand it that's basically it. They also discuss this issue over at Steam:
http://steamcommunity.com/app/541210/discussions/0/1368380934236744375/

It might be possible to reduce the effect with tricks and knowhow like you suggest, and in fact I suspect that's what happened because I'm quite sure the US tubes don't jam at over 11 knots like what the Soviets calculated. However, any area of low pressure through hydrodynamic would likely be relative - an attenuation of forces rather than an elimination.

Given the fact the Soviets were willing to make a huge design compromise over this issue, I'll say for the moment the burden of proof is on the side claiming the "No Limitation" variant.

[jenrick]

Well torpedo's are supported down their length via the lands of the torpedo tube. So it would only be the last few feet of the torpedo that would have any risk of wedging in the tube. I still would have a lot of doubts about a torpedo either wedging into the tube, or torquing against the tube enough that it damaged the doors and prevented the doors from closing after the torpedo left the tube. The door assembly has to be strong enough to handle the pressure at 500ft or more of depth.

If anything I'd figure the torpedo's would be designed to fail versus run the risk of taking a tube out of commission and possibly endangering the whole sub. Which considering most torpedoes can handle 30kts+ and again several hundred feet worth of water pressure, means it seems unlikely there's much of a risk. I'm not saying it couldn't ever happen, it just seems like a very low risk occurrence.

Some quick back math shows at 33 kts a worst case of approximately 54 PSI on the torpedo on down to .2 PSI for the pressure on the torpedo. Depending on the surface area of the torpedo that's exposed to the flow of water. Neither of those numbers would seem to present an unsolvable engineering problem.

I highly doubt there's going to be any published evidence supporting no max firing speed, as it's certainly a piece of information that I would consider of military value (if there is a max speed).

As an aside a much bigger game play issue to me is the breaking of torpedo wires. I know for instance the MK48 is set to 10% chance, but I routinely can fire 4, at 5 kts level bubble and rudder, and have one wire survive launch. Even then it's rare for it to last anything close to the full run of the fish. I'm curious if there's something a bit off with the their probability generator or if I just have REALLY bad luck with torpedo wires. I even tried an experiment of setting the wire break chance to 1% with the same result.


-Jenrick

[The Bandit]

I'm not going to pretend I'm any kind of hydrodynamics expert, but as I understand it that's basically it. They also discuss this issue over at Steam:
http://steamcommunity.com/app/541210/discussions/0/1368380934236744375/

It might be possible to reduce the effect with tricks and knowhow like you suggest, and in fact I suspect that's what happened because I'm quite sure the US tubes don't jam at over 11 knots like what the Soviets calculated. However, any area of low pressure through hydrodynamic would likely be relative - an attenuation of forces rather than an elimination.

Given the fact the Soviets were willing to make a huge design compromise over this issue, I'll say for the moment the burden of proof is on the side claiming the "No Limitation" variant.

I'll have to do some digging but I recall reading about subs doing torpedo trials at full speed. If memory serves, speed limits are imposed on missile launches because the drag encountered at speed can do all sorts of funny things to the missile canister and spoil the launch.

On the topic of hydrodynamics, what is really bugging me lately is the frequency that ships which eat a Mk 37 can speed off into the night at 24 knots. My non-expert understanding is that speeding around with a hole in the bottom would almost surely end up tearing up whatever bulkheads survived in the damaged area. The Mk 37 doesn't have a very big warhead, but I think its safe to say that if one of them meets a ship, he's going to be out of the fight for a bit while he focuses on his continued survival.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Well, fortunately for my sanity, I have reacquired the quote.

Locating the BQQ-2 in the bow placed it in an optimum search location ... required that the 21-inch ... be moved further aft and angled outboard at approximately 15 degrees .... The Bureau of Ships was concerned that firing at an angle would limit the speed at which a submarine could launch torpedoes, but the feasibility of angled launch was demonstrated to a speed of 18 knots.

and here's one more from the 2014 Submarine Torpedo Tactics: An American History
Considerable tests were run to determine the maximum speed that Sturgeon could make when firing torpedoes from the canted tubes. The concern stemmed from the fear that a torpedo leaving the tube would encounter strong lateral pressure on the forward part of the torpedo that might produce a twisting motion with a resulting hang-up in the tube. It was found that submarine speeds up to 18 knots would not interrupt a smooth torpedo departure.

For the Russian side, I think every account of the 671 (Victor) will include some reference to this affair, such as this:
http://www.deepstorm.ru/DeepStorm.files/45-92/nts/671/list.htm
or https://web.archive.org/web/20050405022107/http://www.submarine.id.ru:80/sub.php?671
and I've also attached a JPEG from a book (unfortunately, Andrei V Polutov only seems to write for Japan, not the United States so the text is in Japanese, but all you really need to read is the "11" near the top of the right hand page).

So, at the very least, this idea and issue is indeed fairly well-sourced.

As an aside a much bigger game play issue to me is the breaking of torpedo wires. I know for instance the MK48 is set to 10% chance, but I routinely can fire 4, at 5 kts level bubble and rudder, and have one wire survive launch. Even then it's rare for it to last anything close to the full run of the fish. I'm curious if there's something a bit off with the their probability generator or if I just have REALLY bad luck with torpedo wires. I even tried an experiment of setting the wire break chance to 1% with the same result.

Your experiences match mine. I've sadly given up on all attacks that assume the Mark 48 can be wire-guided.

[PL_Harpoon]

Your experiences match mine. I've sadly given up on all attacks that assume the Mark 48 can be wire-guided.

Are you sure you're facing the direction you're firing?
In my playthrough I found that most causes for wire-breaks were not speed, or even sharp manoeuvres but the angle to torpedo.
If you don't know, the torpedo wire will break, if your angle to torpedo is greater than 30 degrees on each side.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Are you sure you're facing the direction you're firing?
In my playthrough I found that most causes for wire-breaks were not speed, or even sharp manoeuvres but the angle to torpedo.
If you don't know, the torpedo wire will break, if your angle to torpedo is greater than 30 degrees on each side.

Yes. I tend to leave just enough angle (~10 degrees AOB) for the towed sonar to function. And I'm either stopped or at 5 knots. I've done everything I know to make things easy for the wire. :wah:

[PL_Harpoon]

Yes. I tend to leave just enough angle (~10 degrees AOB) for the towed sonar to function. And I'm either stopped or at 5 knots. I've done everything I know to make things easy for the wire. :wah:

That's really strange. I've just had a scenario in which I wire-guided 2 torpedoes for over 15 KYDS without problems. And that's common situation for me. Even at 10 knots.

[shipkiller1]

Well, I can only relate my own experiences. I served on three different boats from 1980 to 2004.

USS Phoenix SSN-702
USS Finback SSN-670
USS Oklahoma City SSN-723

I spent 75% of my time up in 'Indian Country'.

Just remember, do not just take the word you read in a book about US Submarine operations as gospel. There is a lot of disinformation in there, some it old and out of date and some is just plain wrong.
I read Sontags book. I found it.... amusing...

Book information is one thing but in all actuality, there is no operational 'warning, caution or note' that says what your maximum speed should be when launching a torpedo. I've done it at all speeds including flank.

With regards to the wire, there are several reasons, from tube construction to weapon functions to explain why I say the wire breaks way to much. But hey, its just a game.

One thing I was confused by was your reference of AOB. In the TMA world, AOB is always referenced from the contact, not the bearing from own ship (OS) to the contact.

[captinjoehenry]

Well, I can only relate my own experiences. I served on three different boats from 1980 to 2004.

USS Phoenix SSN-702
USS Finback SSN-670
USS Oklahoma City SSN-723

I spent 75% of my time up in 'Indian Country'.

Just remember, do not just take the word you read in a book about US Submarine operations as gospel. There is a lot of disinformation in there, some it old and out of date and some is just plain wrong.
I read Sontags book. I found it.... amusing...

Book information is one thing but in all actuality, there is no operational 'warning, caution or note' that says what your maximum speed should be when launching a torpedo. I've done it at all speeds including flank.

With regards to the wire, there are several reasons, from tube construction to weapon functions to explain why I say the wire breaks way to much. But hey, its just a game.

One thing I was confused by was your reference of AOB. In the TMA world, AOB is always referenced from the contact, not the bearing from own ship (OS) to the contact.
Hmm well that sounds like a convincing reason to allow full speed torp launches. I just wish you had some sort of physical or referable proof about the torp launch limits. Still I am not hugely surprised to hear it is possible in the real world. I do hope it is changed in game as well.

[jenrick]

I can certainly see launch speed being an issue back in the infancy of off angle tubes. With plenty of testing need to verify that it was in fact feasible at all speeds. Ironically the Skipjack as modeled in game appears to be the initial design without a spherical array in the way as all 6 tubes are on the bow. So regardless of if there is a concern the Skipjack shouldn't have any issues.

-Jenrick

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I spent 75% of my time up in 'Indian Country'.

Wow, that's very high. You are saying out of every 365 days, you spend over 270 of them not only at sea, but right up in an operational area? What happened to training, maintenance, crew rest, transit times ... etc?

Ironically the Skipjack as modeled in game appears to be the initial design without a spherical array in the way as all 6 tubes are on the bow. So regardless of if there is a concern the Skipjack shouldn't have any issues. -Jenrick

I agree. Besides, gamewise, it'll give players a real reason (that's not masochism or machoism) to try a Skipjack rather than a 688.

[shipkiller1]

Wow, that's very high. You are saying out of every 365 days, you spend over 270 of them not only at sea, but right up in an operational area? What happened to training, maintenance, crew rest, transit times ... etc?

Deployed time...

There were three years straight where we spent 300 days at sea each year....

Another note:

If you raise the ESM mast, you should get a bearing from each ESM contact.

[jenrick]

I agree. Besides, gamewise, it'll give players a real reason (that's not masochism or machoism) to try a Skipjack rather than a 688.

I actually really like the Skipjack in '68 over the other boats. I've made a few posts about tactics, that cover why. However in the '80's campaign the Skipjack should have been retrofitted the AN-BQQ-5 (I think it was) spherical array and now should have the angled tube issues.

-Jenrick

[Onkel Neal]

Deployed time...

There were three years straight where we spent 300 days at sea each year....

Another note:

If you raise the ESM mast, you should get a bearing from each ESM contact.

The game Help section says that the scope displays ESM strength and the ESM mast displays strength and a purple bearing line on the map.

As for wire breaking and jammed tubes when fired at flank speed, my assumption is those are gameplay elements to force the player make choices and live with the results. For example, say I am pointing at the target, and I have a wire guided torp headed to my high sol contact... and I get an incoming torpedo. Do I order flank speed to start clearing datum and risk breaking the wire and losing my target? I have to make a choice. And however realistic these elements are, they sorta make physical sense in our world, so it seems ok to model this in a game. It does make the game more interesting.



As an aside a much bigger game play issue to me is the breaking of torpedo wires. I know for instance the MK48 is set to 10% chance, but I routinely can fire 4, at 5 kts level bubble and rudder, and have one wire survive launch. Even then it's rare for it to last anything close to the full run of the fish. I'm curious if there's something a bit off with the their probability generator or if I just have REALLY bad luck with torpedo wires. I even tried an experiment of setting the wire break chance to 1% with the same result.


-Jenrick


Same here. I would prefer the game model wire breakage as rare when I am doing everything right, same 10% as you suggested.

[The Bandit]

I actually really like the Skipjack in '68 over the other boats. I've made a few posts about tactics, that cover why. However in the '80's campaign the Skipjack should have been retrofitted the AN-BQQ-5 (I think it was) spherical array and now should have the angled tube issues.

-Jenrick

I too like the Skipjack (really its about the only thing that I drive) but even as far back as 1968 it was regarded as a "second-line" boat. For its time it had amazing speed and maneuverability, its sonar (BQS-4 active and BQR-2 passive in the chin position) could be seen as "general purpose" at best even for when it was introduced in the late 50s.

For various reasons the Skipjacks never received many upgrades until they were retired in the late 80s and early 90s (there was talk of a sonar upgrade which had funding pulled, many of the boomers had a similar sonar system and which was eventually upgraded to BQR-21 which featured digital processing but was still short of what the spherical arrays could do). Small size was an issue. Another problem is that they were the last boats built without isolation mounts for machinery, so even if they had of received better sonar or newer fire control systems which would have enabled them to fire missiles, they'd still be at a disadvantage compared to newer boats.

As hard as it can be to play as the Skipjack, I shudder to think how a Skate class would fare, even in 1968! This only makes the idea of old one off boats like Halibut and Seawolf going on sneaky special ops even scarier.

This kind of brings up another point. I think they may already have aspects of this but I would assume, weather war came in 68 or 84, that they wouldn't treat all boats as equal and assign them the same types of tasks / missions. What I'm saying is that by the same token USS Narwhal, the quietest boat in the fleet would probably be asked to do some sneaky stuff (SEAL insertion and recon) your 25+ year old Skipjack is probably going to be put on some kind of barrier patrol vs. sneaking into Soviet waters. While I think this is worth bringing up, its true that game play has to be taken into account, can't imagine the game would be very popular if you just spent hours watching your old Skipjack rust and gather marine growth.

[PL_Harpoon]

As an aside a much bigger game play issue to me is the breaking of torpedo wires. I know for instance the MK48 is set to 10% chance, but I routinely can fire 4, at 5 kts level bubble and rudder, and have one wire survive launch. Even then it's rare for it to last anything close to the full run of the fish. I'm curious if there's something a bit off with the their probability generator or if I just have REALLY bad luck with torpedo wires. I even tried an experiment of setting the wire break chance to 1% with the same result.


-Jenrick

Wire break chance only affects braking the wire at launch.
If I'm not mistaken, wire braking works like that.
- % chance of braking at launch
- the biggest angle between direction of the boat and the torpedo the greatest chance of braking the wire - the manual states it's 40 deg (20 on each side), in my experience it's more like 60.
- wire will brake when your speed exceeds 15 knots
- pitching will also increase the chance of braking - this one is a bit vague and I haven't tested it much, however I have been diving at 20 deg without the wire braking, but that was at some distance from the torpedo - basically, when I have a connection I tend to change depth by ballast only.
- some boats have limited number of connections. Skipjack can have only one, Permit, Sturgeon and Narwhal can have 2 and only LA can have 4 wire guided torps at a time.

As far as I know these are the only rules that affect torpedo wires. So if you follow those rules, the only way a wire can break is if it does on launch (10% chance, but can be moddable).

[Wiz33]

Wire break chance only affects braking the wire at launch.
If I'm not mistaken, wire braking works like that.
- % chance of braking at launch
- the biggest angle between direction of the boat and the torpedo the greatest chance of braking the wire - the manual states it's 40 deg (20 on each side), in my experience it's more like 60.
- wire will brake when your speed exceeds 15 knots
- pitching will also increase the chance of braking - this one is a bit vague and I haven't tested it much, however I have been diving at 20 deg without the wire braking, but that was at some distance from the torpedo - basically, when I have a connection I tend to change depth by ballast only.
- some boats have limited number of connections. Skipjack can have only one, Permit, Sturgeon and Narwhal can have 2 and only LA can have 4 wire guided torps at a time.

As far as I know these are the only rules that affect torpedo wires. So if you follow those rules, the only way a wire can break is if it does on launch (10% chance, but can be moddable).

Murphy also have a hand in it. I had a torp doing a dogleg, It's well within the forward 60, my sub did not change speed and pitch and the wire broke just when I was about to have it turn in towards the target. Waste a perfectly good torp.

[jenrick]

I'd assume that we should be able to do "over the shoulder launches" due the torpedo having to run out initially (I believe it is referred to as it's "reach") before it begins to turn. I'm guessing that this hasn't changed from WW2 to know. This I would think would solve the wire break problem, as they would no longer be trying to run as soon as they clear the muzzle of the tube. Looking through the weapons file I see no way to implement this, but I think it would be a good behavior to add as it is a) realistic and b) helps handle one of the more frustrating issues of wire breakage.

-Jenrick

[shipkiller1]

I'd assume that we should be able to do "over the shoulder launches" due the torpedo having to run out initially (I believe it is referred to as it's "reach") before it begins to turn. I'm guessing that this hasn't changed from WW2 to know. This I would think would solve the wire break problem, as they would no longer be trying to run as soon as they clear the muzzle of the tube. Looking through the weapons file I see no way to implement this, but I think it would be a good behavior to add as it is a) realistic and b) helps handle one of the more frustrating issues of wire breakage.

-Jenrick

A real MK48 starts the engine after three conditions are met (I will not tell you what these are). These three conditions occur just as it is leaving the tube. It then does a preprogrammed (not by own ship) maneuver to clear the wire.

Depending on torpedo gyro angle, you might hit the safety parameters and it will shutdown on an 'Over the shoulder' shot.

[jenrick]

Okay so to be more realistic with the MK48 at least, instead of a busted wire, we ought to simply have a dead torpedo; interesting. So a true 180 degree off angle shot is probably out. What would a reasonable angle be for an off angle shot that would have a high likely hood of maintaining the wire? I think the major issue is that it's a very limited arc right now where the wire doesn't shear as soon as the fish is fired which can be very frustrating.

-Jenrick

[LeopardDriver]

I'd assume that we should be able to do "over the shoulder launches" due the torpedo having to run out initially (I believe it is referred to as it's "reach") before it begins to turn. I'm guessing that this hasn't changed from WW2 to know. This I would think would solve the wire break problem, as they would no longer be trying to run as soon as they clear the muzzle of the tube. Looking through the weapons file I see no way to implement this, but I think it would be a good behavior to add as it is a) realistic and b) helps handle one of the more frustrating issues of wire breakage.

-Jenrick

I do that manually and my wires do not brake that often. So give the torp a first target 500 m infront of the sub and then assign the definite target. Problem solved.

[jenrick]

I do that manually and my wires do not brake that often. So give the torp a first target 500 m infront of the sub and then assign the definite target. Problem solved.

I've started to do that too, but it's annoying when you've got 3-4 fish in the water that you're trying to get head in different directions.

-Jenrick