Things you like about CW, Things you don't like.

[LoBlo]

Things liked, things not. I'll start.

Like
1. The visuals are really nice, camera control, and models are great
2. The campaign style is really fun
3. The campaign map is a nice touch and gives a sense of total boat command
4. The sense of 'driving the boat'

Dislikes
1. Not being able to click at an onscreen helm instead of looking at my keyboard for the right button
2. Not having the option to set a course , speed, or depth with a 'command' rather than manually turning rudders
3. Lack of a crew voice to announce
4. The AI 'instant ranging you' spot on every time with its rocket propelled torpedoes

I'm hoping patches or mods will improve the above.

lb

[Philipp_Thomsen]

Haven't started playing yet, plan to this weekend.

But I've gotta say, based on the trailer, that I'm terribly disappointed with
the effects of underwater torpedo explosion. Come on, it's 2017, I've seen
games released a decade ago with better effects.

Hopefully mods will fix that.

[PL_Harpoon]

Haven't started playing yet, plan to this weekend.

But I've gotta say, based on the trailer, that I'm terribly disappointed with
the effects of underwater torpedo explosion. Come on, it's 2017, I've seen
games released a decade ago with better effects.

Hopefully mods will fix that.

Yeah, it would be cool to see something like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5rGFZWQfzk

The current surface explosions are great (especially love the shockwave effects) but I'll agree that underwater ones are a bit lacking in comparison (it's a minor thing though).

[jmr]

Starting engagement ranges seem to close for my tastes even if I select close to 25k yards. I like to start farther out and slowly close the distance as I work up a good solution in 1:1 scale.

[Griphos]

It looks like update 1.04 will address most of your dislikes. I think I need to buy this game today.

[Tinman764]

I'd like to see more info about your task in the main campaign map.
I've found it frustrating to try and figure out which icon is my specific task and chasing them around trying to engage it.

Prehaps something like a pre-engagement minigame, where the map focuses on your objective area when you enter it. You can set up patrol waypoints, speed and depth - imagine SH3's map - and how you handle your detection and approach to you target determines how the engagement starts.

[Julhelm]

Haven't started playing yet, plan to this weekend.

But I've gotta say, based on the trailer, that I'm terribly disappointed with
the effects of underwater torpedo explosion. Come on, it's 2017, I've seen
games released a decade ago with better effects.

Hopefully mods will fix that.
What games would that be?

[Shadow]

What games would that be?

Dangerous Waters: Rose-Tinted Glasses Edition. :D

Seriously, it's not the first time I've heard claims decade-old game effects are better than CW's. Guys need to take another look for some much needed nostalgia displacement.

[Philipp_Thomsen]

What games would that be?

SH3

[bruniik]

i emailed killer fish games about the helos and got a reply this morning


----------------------------------------

Helos right now do not have fuel limits, but it seems likely this will get added at some point.
Agree they should bug out on loss of parent ship. Another thing to add!

And we agree, they are a bit of a nuisance at the moment and will get looked at in order to improve them.

Cheers,
Paul

Quoting (redacted for my privacy) <Bruukko@gmail.com>:

FROM: (redacted)
SUBJECT: ASW Helicopters
GAME: Atlantic Fleet
DEVICE: pc

DESCRIPTION:
so how do the ASW helos work? do they have a fuel limit? do they have to
land? if i destroy the ship they launch from shouldnt they bug out so they
can find safe landing somewhere instead of chasing me for 3 hours with no
where to land within hundreds of miles??? i love the challenge they bring
to the game but the game stops being fun when im sitting waiting for the
helo to buzz off for hours.

----------------------


:D i wonder when that will be implemented but i am certainly excited

[cj95]

What games would that be?


Ha ha....good one!:haha:



For myself, I actually do like the current submarine control scheme. I get what my comrades are saying, but IF you do decide to change things to traditional orders please don't eliminate "driving the boat" option for those of us who do enjoy it.


Overall I'm enjoying the hell out the game. Kudos and thanks!

[Onkel Neal]

Interesting, we haven't heard much praise about the dynamic campaign or randomly generated adversaries. Imagine if the campaign had been heavily scripted....

When I get some time I really want to explore making single missions where the enemy ships vary greatly in placement and inclusion, like a randomly generated skirmish mode.

[PL_Harpoon]

Interesting, we haven't heard much praise about the dynamic campaign or randomly generated adversaries. Imagine if the campaign had been heavily scripted....


That I would call "spoiled-by-SH syndrome" :D

[Raptor_Pilot]

Interesting, we haven't heard much praise about the dynamic campaign or randomly generated adversaries.

The fact no one is complaining about it is probably all the praise you'll get.
I think it could use a bit of scrubbing, but it's certainly fun enough.

If you fail a mission because you were taking on weapons while docked at Holy Loch, the Admiral needs to get a grip on something called "timeframe".

[Tinman764]

Interesting, we haven't heard much praise about the dynamic campaign or randomly generated adversaries. Imagine if the campaign had been heavily scripted....

When I get some time I really want to explore making single missions where the enemy ships vary greatly in placement and inclusion, like a randomly generated skirmish mode.

There are improvements to be made there, for sure.

For one thing, I'm not sure how realistic it is to expect a sub to patrol the Denmark Strait, then head over to the Barents Sea and then down to southern Norway. I don't think the campaign takes into account the distances you need to travel.
Or I could be wrong and this could be totaly expected in war time for a nuke boat.

We also need a way to request an RTB for rearm and repairs.

I'd also like to be able to focus into an area of the map and get intel on known and projected movements. When to expect the next observation, etc. to help plot intercept courses or avoid ASW units.

[PL_Harpoon]

There are improvements to be made there, for sure.

For one thing, I'm not sure how realistic it is to expect a sub to patrol the Denmark Strait, then head over to the Barents Sea and then down to southern Norway. I don't think the campaign takes into account the distances you need to travel.
Or I could be wrong and this could be totaly expected in war time for a nuke boat.

We also need a way to request an RTB for rearm and repairs.

I'd also like to be able to focus into an area of the map and get intel on known and projected movements. When to expect the next observation, etc. to help plot intercept courses or avoid ASW units.

As RAMJB said on Steam forums, treat it like the admiralty telling you what needs to be done. As a captain it's up to you to decide whether you want to engage target with limited stores or risk mission failure and refit.

One thing I'd like to see improved in campaign though is fixed number of enemy ships. I know the original RSR had them, because I remember that at the beginning of war I was fighting Sierras and Victor IIIs but then near the end I almost exclusively encountered low-end diesel subs.

[gord96]

For one thing, I'm not sure how realistic it is to expect a sub to patrol the Denmark Strait, then head over to the Barents Sea and then down to southern Norway. I don't think the campaign takes into account the distances you need to travel.

We also need a way to request an RTB for rearm and repairs.

This. I really enjoy the game and the campaign, but the campaign needs to be a bit 'smarter'. I have 24% hull and 1 torpedo left and I get orders to go find and sink multiple subs. If I go home for repair and refit, I fail the mission and possibly lose the war.

Would be nice if you could click a 'Return to Base' button and it would delay the next mission (simulating Command giving it to another submarine) until you get back to base.

Other then that I don't have many complaints. I find it very well done.

[bstanko6]

I never played red storm, I played SSN. Similar.

I do like the simplicity of how the boats are driven.

I do not like how courses and depths cannot be "set".

Other than that... bravo!

[Leemon]

As 19th post gonna be third on topic.
Not sure or I can keep same amount Like vs Dislike as OP did, will try.

Likes
1. Simplicity - I immediately got surprised how simulator/game can be at same time so simple and realistic. I can give .play this game for a kid explaining mechanics in just few sentences and im sure in short time he would be as good on this game as any hardcore subsimer.
2. Developers - activity in patching game and contact with community. Havent seen developers beeing that close to community. Love this part !
3. Operations manual and training missions. I remember DW hundreds page manual and lack of SH manual where had to do research - these 2 games was my introduction to naval gaming. Great job on that! As game itself - short and simple.
4. Campaign map. Even tho idea was from Red Storm Rising, but damn I like campaign map mode. Fast acceleration, 3 clicks/modes, simplest textures at it can be - love it. Most boring part of naval game made so quick and simple. DW didnt had campaign, SH had tedious open world - and CW have jackpot.
5. Pending for dislikes input
6. Pending for dislikes input
7. Pending for dislikes input
8. Pending for dislikes input
9. Pending for dislikes input
10. Pending for dislikes input
...

Dislikes
1. No multiplayer - Im fan of MMOs, where other players and them skills is part of game content, so I get bored quickly playing against AI. And thinking about it, all games I played in last few years was MP.
2. Pricing vs state/quality. I can understand it, all simulation games have higher pricing, but game state felt like early access. Not that Im complaining, I have good feeling about what is coming in future, but worried that it might backfire with rest of players with such success on release. :up: on fast reacting and fixing issues!
3. Now im starting hard to think of dislikes to keep up with likes. Give me a moment...:ping::ping::ping:... This is fraking hard!...:ping::ping::ping:.... Damn it, there so much to write on likes, and I cant think of dislikes.... FFS!... Ok, i think I got one: Difficulty levels. Hull points, sensor strength ranges etc. that something I think shouldnt be affected by difficulty levels, it doesnt make that much difficult. While disabling some features on higher difficulties would make sense, like 3D, F1-F4 cameras, Sensors data COMP and the other one, AI behavior, weather/sea conditions, slower TMA calculations etc.
4. I might end up only with 4, because 4th dislike is lack of dislikes about game, so I couldnt write more things about what I like :(

[LoBlo]

Interesting, we haven't heard much praise about the dynamic campaign or randomly generated adversaries. Imagine if the campaign had been heavily scripted....

So I just finished a 1st run through of the campaign and its really fun and interesting. I like what KillerFish did there. Dynamic and immersive.

Bravo KF.

[tirta]

The only thing I do not like about CW is:

When I am at 1/3 speed, shift-s and below the layer, in the shadow zone then suddenly out of nowhere a torpedo dropped right above my sub.
And these happens quite a few times without knowing what I have done wrong.
Tinman suggests that this is caused by distance scale bug 1:1,
I think he maybe right, I hope they will fix this issue with future patch.

Or maybe in the future patch, make a detection probability setting so that we can choose the probability % of getting detected (without doing something noisy ourselves) by ourselves.

[Lanzfeld]

I like the same things that everyone else likes.

Some of the things that I think really need improvement are...

1. I don't like knowing exactly when Im detected and when I'm not. There should be some human factor in there.

2. For some strange reason every battle seems just like the last one. Somethings missing in the mix and I don't know what it is.

3. It's too easy to classify the targets. I wish that part of the game was more involved and difficult.

4. I guess looking at what I've listed above I'm wanting this to be more on the simulator side than it really is. I'm very much enjoying the game however.

5. The overuse of active sonar by the enemy in almost every scenario. I know the DEVS found one reference to this in the history books but I hope they did not construct the artificial intelligence based around this one example. Submarine warfare in the 80s was really more often a game of being quiet.

6. Please let us scroll through the campaign introduction and exit screens quicker. Once you've read them once that little pause really hurts.

[ollie1983]

I would like more and varied one off scenarios, or the ability to setup your own, choose the area, the conditions, the time and the opposing platforms.

Shouldn't be too hard to setup.

I want the sonar side of the game to be enhanced. We want to hear hull popping, transients, launches, blade counts etc. The ability to listen to the world would be ace.

The game manual needs to be far more detailed as well.

[PL_Harpoon]

5. The overuse of active sonar by the enemy in almost every scenario. I know the DEVS found one reference to this in the history books but I hope they did not construct the artificial intelligence based around this one example. Submarine warfare in the 80s was really more often a game of being quiet.


Actually with this one I believe them. The reason for this is this quote from another thread:

I would suggest starting with the books we used for reference:

Friedman, N. (1994). US Submarines Since 1945
Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press

Vego, M. (1992). Soviet Naval Tactics
Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press

Polmar, N. (1983). Guide to the Soviet Navy 3rd ed.
Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press

Polmar, N. Breyer, S. (1978). Guide to the Soviet Navy 2nd ed.
Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press

Polmar, N., Moore, K.(2004). Cold War Submarines
Dulles, VA: Potomac Books Inc.

Jordan, J. (1992). Soviet Warships 1945 to the Present
London, UK: Arms and Armour Press

Jordan, J. (1989). Soviet Submarines 1945 to the Present
London, UK: Arms and Armour Press

Jordan, J. (1982). Guide To The Modern Soviet Navy
London, UK: Salamander Books Ltd.

Jordan, J., Miller D. (1987). Modern Submarine Warfare
London, UK: Salamander Books Ltd.

Miller, D. (1982). Modern Submarines
London, UK: Salamander Books Ltd.

Clancy, T. (1993). Submarine
London, UK: HarperCOllinsPublishers

Sontag, S., Drew, C. (1998). Blind Man's Bluff
London, UK: Random House UK Ltd.

Sasgen, P. (2009). Stalking The Red Bear
New York, NY: St Martins' Press

I never read any of those books, but I suspect at least some of them explain why Soviets were using active sonar a lot. This one example you mentioned is probably just that - a single example.
At least I hope I'm not wrong here.


6. Please let us scroll through the campaign introduction and exit screens quicker. Once you've read them once that little pause really hurts.
Just spam spacebar :)

[Lanzfeld]

WOW!

I had no idea.

[Badger343rd]

I would like an AAR report. Not knowing what got me and how is frustrating.
Having ALL buttons on the interface clickable so I don't need to touch the keyboard.


A sonar station
Tma station
I understand the reason for a simple game mode, but it should be optional.

Being able to disable a torp after enable.
Allow us to stream towed array at will
I should be able to order turns per knot so I can make maximum speed but stay below cavitation.

An option to make all interfaces auto disappear and reappear based on mouse position...the reason for this is it would allow me to play it on a bigscreeen PLASMA tv and not worry about "burn in" on the screen.If an interface is too static it creates a ghost in the plasma.

[tirta]

Yes, a quite detailed AAR report is a very good idea.
Or maybe a mission replay like the old RSR.

[Jace11]

The campaign is pretty decent and something a game like DW didn't have. It's random, but I don't like the land attack missions (cause its pretty unrealistic to sail right up to the target) but everything else is fine and feels legit.

Did you notice that if you are spotted on the campaign map by satellites or air assets, the nearby hunter groups make a B-line for you! That's pretty nice...

I agree about the 25 KYD starts being too close, I've looked to see if it can be modded, but it doesn't look like it at the moment.

Enemy evade AI needs some work. Subs just turn and run, some dive to the seafloor and get stuck etc. The turning away from torps often just seals their fate, more lateral evasion and depth changes would be nice, although the Alfa is fast enough that just plain running might be worthwhile. Surface ships evade into landmass, a problem!

The AI aircraft are a bit better after recent patches and the MAD nerf. Explosions in the water (from dead torps, depth charges, hits on targets etc etc) should seriously nerf all sonar detection for a short period, at the moment it doesn't seem to.

Torpedos are lead homing like SAMs at the moment... not sure about that! Lag homing might be more realistic, especially for passives and would make evasion for AI easier I think.

There is no speed of sound above water, you hear explosions at distance instantly. I hope this isn't mirrored underwater, but that's harder to test.

[ollie1983]

The torpedos do seem a bit too clever than realism might suggest. As you say, lag homing should be default. Perhaps alter it for harder difficulties?

I generally wire steer every one of my fish, where I can.

[Lanzfeld]

And yes spamming the space bar zips you right through all those campaign storytelling still shots. Thank you for that!


EDIT... I have 20/20 vision but I still have trouble reading the ESM meter. Please make it easier to read.

[Nikita]

I would like the option, in campaign mode, of saving game in the middle of a mission (in tactical map). Sometimes RL knocks at your door and you need an escape hatch!

[Lanzfeld]

I would love to see the TLAM missions either go away or be redone entirely.

[Julhelm]

You can simply mod them out of the 84 campaign if you don't like them, or choose a boat that doesn't have TLAMs.

[LeopardDriver]

They AI is too predictable for my taste and I don`t see them use any advanced tactics at all.

Some examples:


Using a MOSS at all.
Using the MOSS for detecting or distracting the enemy.
Using a torpedo for detecting the enemy by firing in the suspected direction without having a contact.
Working together, like one boat baiting, the other hunting.
Trying to sneak up on your six deliberately.
Using several torpedos for one target at the same time, maybe one leading, one lagging.
Two boats spreading out and coming for you on the opposite site.
Etc.

[somedude88]

Aiming and firing torpedoes from the minimap/map is a bit clunky and ridiculously hard to hit anything this way with mk 16 dumb torpedoes. Wish I could also fire a spread instead of having to rotate through the tubes one at a time.

[Philipp_Thomsen]

Just installed CW and played.
5 minutes later, uninstalled.

Reeeeeally arcade, drive around with WASD? No first person camera?

Not for me.

[Nippelspanner]

Just installed CW and played.
5 minutes later, uninstalled.

Reeeeeally arcade, drive around with WASD? No first person camera?

Not for me.
I agree, but two things.

First, you could have easily known this in advance.
Second, a new UI is incoming, adding the possibility to order course, speed and depth, as you know it from submarine simulations.

The title was released unfinished - but the team is really working hard on it.

[Wiz33]

I agree, but two things.

First, you could have easily known this in advance.
Second, a new UI is incoming, adding the possibility to order course, speed and depth, as you know it from submarine simulations.

The title was released unfinished - but the team is really working hard on it.

It's not un-finished. This is not a Sub stations simulator, it's a sub commander simulator. As a captain, you have crew that does all the other stuff for you. Your job is not to sit in front of the waterfall or plot TMA on a chart. The lack of a helm command is an oversight but it's being addressed.

[Wiz33]

Just installed CW and played.
5 minutes later, uninstalled.

Reeeeeally arcade, drive around with WASD? No first person camera?

Not for me.

Too bad you're missing out on a great sub sim (a true sub commander operation sim vs a sub stations operator sim like all the SH,688,DW junk).

[Nippelspanner]

It's not un-finished. This is not a Sub stations simulator, it's a sub commander simulator. As a captain, you have crew that does all the other stuff for you. Your job is not to sit in front of the waterfall or plot TMA on a chart. The lack of a helm command is an oversight but it's being addressed.
Not unfinished?
I am the Captain?
Please, spare me these mantra-like excuses.

If I am the Captain, why must I drive the boat manually?
If I have a crew - where are their voices, their feedback I need so badly as CO?

Right, not there yet, hence: Unfinished.


Edit:
Too bad you're missing out on a great sub sim (a true sub commander operation sim vs a sub stations operator sim like all the SH,688,DW junk).
Really? "Junk"?
"True" sub commander sim?

Go play Fast Attack if you want to catch a glimpse of what that means in the realms of PC simulations. There's nothing better than that when it comes to "be in command!" feeling.
Trashing these established simulations shows where you're coming from, really.
Also, in DW, for example, you can have your crew manage every station automatically, "being the Captain".

So much for your implication that this "junk game" forces you to stare on some waterfall.
It doesn't.

Meanwhile in CW, the player is kept busy by flying his own boat.
Ridiculous.

CW gives you the feeling of being a robot-sub with boosted capabilities fighting dumb enemies that ground themselves or go beyond crush depth while pinging like maniacs.

No one mentioned stations. So don't even try that straw-man.

[Wiz33]

Not unfinished?
I am the Captain?
Please, spare me these mantra-like excuses.

If I am the Captain, why must I drive the boat manually?
If I have a crew - where are their voices, their feedback I need so badly as CO?

Right, not there yet, hence: Unfinished.


Edit:

Really? "Junk"?
"True" sub commander sim?

Go play Fast Attack if you want to catch a glimpse of what that means in the realms of PC simulations. There's nothing better than that when it comes to "be in command!" feeling.
Trashing these established simulations shows where you're coming from, really.
Also, in DW, for example, you can have your crew manage every station automatically, "being the Captain".

So much for your implication that this "junk game" forces you to stare on some waterfall.
It doesn't.

Meanwhile in CW, the player is kept busy by flying his own boat.
Ridiculous.

CW gives you the feeling of being a robot-sub with boosted capabilities fighting dumb enemies that ground themselves or go beyond crush depth while pinging like maniacs.

No one mentioned stations. So don't even try that straw-man.

I was there at the dawn of the PC age. I was on the beta team for North Atlantic 86, my name is the the original Harpoon strategy guide and I've played every modern military sim to death. and I do call some of them junk. boosted capabilities my ass. now. those so call automatic crew operation in DW is just junk as none of them would have made it on a real US sub.

[Nippelspanner]

I was there at the dawn of the PC age. I was on the beta team for North Atlantic 86, my name is the the original Harpoon strategy guide and I've played every modern military sim to death. and I do call some of them junk. boosted capabilities my ass. now. those so call automatic crew operation in DW is just junk as none of them would have made it on a real US sub.
So what does you being the self-proclaimed Godfather of PC simulations have to do with anything?
Will it somehow boost your authority?
Will your hollow arguments suddenly fill with reason?
No.

So far you simply bashed DW and the other titles, without giving reasonable examples, and your last sentence is nothing but delusional. What does that even mean, "none of them would have made it on a real US sub."?
At least the lingo and procedures are simulated - not like in CW, where your crew consists of mutes!
It's like you're bashing Project Cars in terms of physics, and than claim that Super Mario Cart is the hottest stuff around.
Hilarious.

If you are so well-versed in the simulation genre, you sure did play Fast Attack, a title developed (in lead) by a former 688 skipper, and a game the Navy wasn't too happy about due to its authentic nature.
I hoped CW would have at least some feeling and features from FA, like announced/implied, but I am still looking for it. Did you find something?
Enlighten me.

So, all these games are "junk" (because reasons, I assume), but CW is somehow "it"?
Sorry what?
And what do you mean, boosted capabilities your beep?
Are you, the Godfather of the naval simulation genre himself, saying that the boats in CW behave reasonable and authentic?
If a Los Angeles class submarine would be that ridiculously agile, it would not even need counter-measures... what for, if you have fail-safe "knuckles" that shake off every torpedo 100% of the time in this 1:1 simulation that probably breaks OPSEC?

You start to sound like a shill, to be honest. :hmmm:

[PL_Harpoon]

Something to change the tone a little bit...

While I was testing my mod, I came across a hidden feature of sorts.

So, I was hunting down an amphibious strike force that was escorted by 3 warships, one of them being Sovremenny. So, I fired a single torpedo at him which did not sink him. But he was damaged and stopped moving so I left him there and turned my attention to transport ships and other escort.

After a while I came to see how he's going and noticed something interesting - the fire was spreading.

http://oi66.tinypic.com/2ihmsr9.jpg

After a few more minutes it overwhelmed the ship, there was an explosion and the poor ship sunk.

http://oi68.tinypic.com/2aeuheb.jpg

What a nice surprise. :Kaleun_Applaud:

[Wiz33]

So what does you being the self-proclaimed Godfather of PC simulations have to do with anything?
Will it somehow boost your authority?
Will your hollow arguments suddenly fill with reason?
No.

So far you simply bashed DW and the other titles, without giving reasonable examples, and your last sentence is nothing but delusional. What does that even mean, "none of them would have made it on a real US sub."?
At least the lingo and procedures are simulated - not like in CW, where your crew consists of mutes!
It's like you're bashing Project Cars in terms of physics, and than claim that Super Mario Cart is the hottest stuff around.
Hilarious.

If you are so well-versed in the simulation genre, you sure did play Fast Attack, a title developed (in lead) by a former 688 skipper, and a game the Navy wasn't too happy about due to its authentic nature.
I hoped CW would have at least some feeling and features from FA, like announced/implied, but I am still looking for it. Did you find something?
Enlighten me.

So, all these games are "junk" (because reasons, I assume), but CW is somehow "it"?
Sorry what?
And what do you mean, boosted capabilities your beep?
Are you, the Godfather of the naval simulation genre himself, saying that the boats in CW behave reasonable and authentic?
If a Los Angeles class submarine would be that ridiculously agile, it would not even need counter-measures... what for, if you have fail-safe "knuckles" that shake off every torpedo 100% of the time in this 1:1 simulation that probably breaks OPSEC?

You start to sound like a shill, to be honest. :hmmm:

The point is that the all the essential info you need to play the game is complete. All the other stuff you mentioned is nice to have features that would would enhance the game but the game will work without them. The AI problem and small bugs are in every game at launch and just require minor fixed and AI tweak. Fighters in Harpoon and Fleet command miss more than hit at launch unless you personally take a hand in controlling them. The so call AI crew in DW takes forever to ID and do TMA on a contact unless you take a active hand when IRL your sonar tech and fire control team should be able to do it faster. Having to man every station to get anything done is boring.

[Wiz33]

Something to change the tone a little bit...

While I was testing my mod, I came across a hidden feature of sorts.

So, I was hunting down an amphibious strike force that was escorted by 3 warships, one of them being Sovremenny. So, I fired a single torpedo at him which did not sink him. But he was damaged and stopped moving so I left him there and turned my attention to transport ships and other escort.

After a while I came to see how he's going and noticed something interesting - the fire was spreading.

After a few more minutes it overwhelmed the ship, there was an explosion and the poor ship sunk.

What a nice surprise. :Kaleun_Applaud:

Yea. Damage over time is modeled in this and ship will continue to take damage if they cannot get it under control. Happen to me in the Kirov mission, put 2 MK48 into it and it's still afloat and moving (although slowly) by the time I finished/evade the escort and was making another approach, then it sank on it's own.

[Nippelspanner]

The point is that the all the essential info you need to play the game is complete.
:doh:

[Shadow]

You're not being very fair, Nippelspanner: you'll acknowledge Dangerous Waters' automatic crewmen, but Cold Waters allegedly depicts "robot-subs" just because the voiceovers haven't been implemented yet? The implementation of crewmen is functionally the same in both cases.

As for direct control, it's been a point of contention in the community but the devs are working on an alternative navigation module which will allow players to give more general, "captain-like" commands. That said, a sub commander is well capable of giving precise rudder/planes/ballast commands, and KFG originally went for that because they felt it was more immersive. I for one prefer traditional subsim controls, but have come to appreciate the value of direct ones as well: it's particularly important when evading torpedoes, for instance. We'll have both options soon enough, and for that I'm immensely grateful.

At any rate, what constitutes an "unfinished" game? Is it reasonable to call Cold Waters unfinished just because it's lacking a couple of secondary features? Theoretically, perhaps, but in this age of extensive post-release development, all games which receive content updates (and DLC) after launch could be considered unfinished even if they were released in a complete-enough state.

So what'd be a finished game, then? One which has stopped receiving updates beyond bugfixes and balancing? Is that necessarily a positive trait? And is it a negative thing to have this very playable, enjoyable subsim for which its creators intend to produce more stuff for a while yet?

Truth is KFG could call CW finished today, because it's an arbitrary decision and save for bug-freedom, the game has all the features the devs intended it to have to be reasonably called complete. But ultimately we all benefit the longer Cold Waters remains "unfinished" and with upcoming content in the pipeline.

[Drakomis]

Like:
1). I really love the visuals. I think this has been said plenty of times on here, but the visuals really make the feel of the game.
2). The unknown. Like, when I was playing Silent Hunter III, it actually felt like a WWII simulation. It had its kinks, sure, but it also felt primitive and alive. Cold Waters does the same, except you >feel< the advancement in technology, you >feel< how you utilize it.
3). The hard hunts. I tell you, I can't tell you often enough how much I missed a target because I became impatient! I had to realize I had a crew in this game, and I had to help >them< do their jobs too!
4). Ease of use. That's right, it feels easy, and that's not a bad thing! It's a probable WWIII simulation, and with it you have two eras. In both you should be able to feel how easier it is to use torps that track on their own, and harpoon missiles that fire at ships. At the same time, you should be able to feel the difficultly of it!

Dislike:
1). It does get too easy sometimes, I think. Then again, you get an ASW craft up above tracking you and you feel the troll face from the developer. So it evens out.
2). A lot of my dislikes were resolved with the recent patch, so like with the game before forcing you to continue despite damage, now it encourages and even orders you to get repairs. That said, it still doesn't account for the time spent going BACK INTO YOUR AREA OF OPS so when you get there you usually fail.
3). It doesn't have a free campaign mode. I really would like that, where it's just slugging it out.
4). THE INTRO TO EACH CAMPAIGN. MAKE IT STOP. I love Ronald Regan like the next red-blooded American, but goodness gracious!

[Wiz33]

You're not being very fair, Nippelspanner: you'll acknowledge Dangerous Waters' automatic crewmen, but Cold Waters allegedly depicts "robot-subs" just because the voiceovers haven't been implemented yet? The implementation of crewmen is functionally the same in both cases.

As for direct control, it's been a point of contention in the community but the devs are working on an alternative navigation module which will allow players to give more general, "captain-like" commands. That said, a sub commander is well capable of giving precise rudder/planes/ballast commands, and KFG originally went for that because they felt it was more immersive. I for one prefer traditional subsim controls, but have come to appreciate the value of direct ones as well: it's particularly important when evading torpedoes, for instance. We'll have both options soon enough, and for that I'm immensely grateful.

At any rate, what constitutes an "unfinished" game? Is it reasonable to call Cold Waters unfinished just because it's lacking a couple of secondary features? Theoretically, perhaps, but in this age of extensive post-release development, all games which receive content updates (and DLC) after launch could be considered unfinished even if they were released in a complete-enough state.

So what'd be a finished game, then? One which has stopped receiving updates beyond bugfixes and balancing? Is that necessarily a positive trait? And is it a negative thing to have this very playable, enjoyable subsim for which its creators intend to produce more stuff for a while yet?

Truth is KFG could call CW finished today, because it's an arbitrary decision and save for bug-freedom, the game has all the features the devs intended it to have to be reasonably called complete. But ultimately we all benefit the longer Cold Waters remains "unfinished" and with upcoming content in the pipeline.

Exactly! I wouldn't have a problem if he feels that certain features should be included for the price. Afterall, everyone have the right to decide if he's getting his money's worth. But to call a fully functional game un-finished is just bull.

[Shadow]

4). THE INTRO TO EACH CAMPAIGN. MAKE IT STOP. I love Ronald Regan like the next red-blooded American, but goodness gracious!
I agree. While nice the first time around, there should be a button or an option to skip campaign intros altogether. Especially considering you'll be playing the campaigns several times.

[jenrick]

Hit <SPACE> and it'll advance to the next one. Takes about 10 seconds if that to get out of the campaign intro.

-Jenrick

[Philipp_Thomsen]

Too bad you're missing out on a great sub sim (a true sub commander operation sim vs a sub stations operator sim like all the SH,688,DW junk).

There's absolutely NOTHING about Cold Waters that is remotely related to a "simulator".

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Just installed CW and played.
5 minutes later, uninstalled.

Reeeeeally arcade, drive around with WASD?

Yes, really teaches you to be responsible for your sub's movements, JUST LIKE REAL LIFE.

No first person camera?

Periscope view. Do you have any other specific complaints to back your assertion there is nothing that is remotely related to a simulator?

So far you simply bashed DW and the other titles, without giving reasonable examples, and your last sentence is nothing but delusional. What does that even mean, "none of them would have made it on a real US sub."?
At least the lingo and procedures are simulated - not like in CW, where your crew consists of mutes!

Most of the lingo is not simulated, at least not in DW. You don't get calls for, for instance, Flooding and Equalizing the Tubes, only Launching them (can't you remember yourself pushing the button two seconds ago?). You get the initial sonar bearing report, but they never tell you anything like Contact Sierra 3 is having a left bearing drift.

And as Wiz points out, the autocrew is pretty weak overall.

As for why you are steering the sub yourself. As a person who is actually against the implementation of automated steering in Cold Waters, I say it is because the manual steering better simulates the realistic level of attention a submarine captain will pay to his submarine's maneuvers.

Formally, critics are correct that a real submarine captain has a OOD and a helmsman. What they ignore is that he also has a real boat costing hundreds of millions (in 1970s dollars), 100 men, and real conditions to deal with. At any moment, his smooth ascent to periscope depth can be threatened by a mistake in the compensation calculation, wave action creating suction, subtle changes to the boat's buoyancy due to the neighboring seawater being of different salinity, mistakes by his helmsmen and or OOD, or sudden mechanical failure in his planes. Sure, the chances of these happening in any one ascent is relatively slim, but if it does and he broaches the captain will be at least disgraced and in wartime he may die. Given such severe threats, he will be paying attention.

The "formally realistic" subsim has none of these. Your sub will be 100% reliable in reaching the ordered depth. Once this gets accustomed to, subsimmers tend to find that problem-free period of time very boring and entertain themselves either by fantasizing the outside situation (3D view) or spacing out (time compression). This of course has nothing to do with real submariner mentality.

So, how do we make our lazy, complacent subsim captains care about their sub's maneuvers? By making them do it themselves. Then, threatened with real consequences they will and must care. But soon they'll be receiving automated steering, that perfect automated steering that has led to such irresponsible attitudes in the first place.

Are you, the Godfather of the naval simulation genre himself, saying that the boats in CW behave reasonable and authentic? If a Los Angeles class submarine would be that ridiculously agile, it would not even need counter-measures... what for, if you have fail-safe "knuckles" that shake off every torpedo 100% of the time in this 1:1 simulation that probably breaks OPSEC

The knuckles are not working very well for me. The noisemakers are indeed 100% effective in the sense they buy you some time, but this is balanced by the torpedoes' reattack logic, so unless you can move entirely out of the range of their seeker during their detour around your noisemaker, they tend to reacquire you and you have to spend another noisemaker, and another, and another, until the torpedo runs out of fuel.

In Dangerous Waters, the decoys effectiveness is not 100%, BUT on the other hand once you decoy them once you are basically done and your basic evasion technique is limited to Turn 120 degrees, Pop Decoy, Straddle Layer with Automatic Sub Control, pop another decoy, come back under the layer, rinse and repeat until the torpedoes are lost. Plus you don't need to bother with conserving the suckers. Overall, Cold Waters provides the more challenging and punitive experience.

[Nippelspanner]

But to call a fully functional game un-finished is just bull.
It's not "bull", it is my opinion which I based on examples and facts.
You still did not deliver any argument except "DW sucks because reasons and CW is super awesome because my name is in the Harpoon credits 200 years ago!"

Come back once you do have an argument besides fallacies.

[Shadow]

Hit <SPACE> and it'll advance to the next one. Takes about 10 seconds if that to get out of the campaign intro.

-Jenrick

Yeah, there's that improvised workaround, but it'd be good UX to have a more direct option or menu setting.

There's absolutely NOTHING about Cold Waters that is remotely related to a "simulator".

I think this is less about true "simulator" qualities and more about CW lacking traditional subsim quirks and instead having its own, because for example, turning knobs on a specific station isn't realistically what a sub commander would do. Nor is it relying on general navigation commands 99% of the time.

It's not "bull", it is my opinion which I based on examples and facts.
You still did not deliver any argument except "DW sucks because reasons and CW is super awesome because my name is in the Harpoon credits 200 years ago!"

Come back once you do have an argument besides fallacies.

While Wiz was perhaps a bit rash in his dismissal of previous subsims, you're conversely putting them on a pedestal, above reproach, while simultaneously bashing CW for the slightest flaws.

[Nippelspanner]

While Wiz was perhaps a bit rash in his dismissal of previous subsims, you're conversely putting them on a pedestal, above reproach, while simultaneously bashing CW for the slightest flaws.
"Slightest flaws"?
A subsim that claims to deliver the commanders perspective yet forces the player to drive the boat himself (from all the things it has to be that!?) and doesn't even have voices for the crew, sorry, that isn't a "slight flaw", that's a major flaw - as many pointed out on steam and here.
Personally, I consider the lack of voices a deal breaker.
I didn't even ask before release about them, because I considered them to be absolute standard.

And that's just two things.

CW has more issues.
The AI probably causing the most problems, from enemy subs that regularily ground themselves nose first, to lackluster torpedo evasion and questionable sensor-values/behavior.
Or what about the silly SEAL/TLAM missions?
Are the devs serious about these!? They are beyond ridiculous, especially the SEALs mission(s). Say "simulation" again please.

This probably will all be fixed. But I can't see into the future, so I will review what we have so far -and what we have now, is not a sub sim in my books - and that has nothing to do with DW.

Speaking of.
I don't put any Sonalysts titles on a podest, quite the opposite. DW, nor the older ones, aren't perfect - but at least they can be considered a true simulation of submarine warfare, despite some flaws, as they at least deliver a rounded experience. CW still feels like a tablet game that is very empty on a closer look.

No neutrals, no friendlies, no nothing - uh, whales, fancy!

It's a quick-action underwater shooter with some semi-authentic features to create the illusion of a simulation.
If that is the new acceptable standard for "naval simulation", the genre is dead for good indeed.

Feel free to disagree, but this is my honest opinion after multiple campaigns in CW, and years with DW and other titles.
So much for "not being fair".

[PL_Harpoon]

Whoa, this discussion is starting to heat up pretty quickly...

So, why not add something to the fire myself :D

While I may not agree with Nippelspanner on some of the major aspects of the game and I seem to get a lot more enjoyment out of it, in all honesty I do have to agree that the game is somewhat unfinished.

I personally don't consider crew voices essential and some times I even find direct sub controls useful ("some times" is the key phrase here) but broken missions and somewhat broken AI is in my opinion enough to call a game unfinished.

But.

That doesn't mean it's a bad game. Even in it's current state it's not unplayable. Far from it. And there's enough things simulated that calling it arcade or a shooter might be insulting to the developers. Yes, WSAD controls feel very arcady and I agree it was a bad design decision but it's not reminiscent of the whole game.
As for the bugs, I don't know why (perhaps it's the mods I'm using) but I haven't seen that many floor-hitting subs as earlier, and, if you're bothered to do so, the TLAM/insertion missions can be edited (certainly not an excuse, but at least there's a way around the issue).

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

"Slightest flaws"?
A subsim that claims to deliver the commanders perspective yet forces the player to drive the boat himself (from all the things it has to be that!?)

OK, why do you find maneuvering and only maneuvering unacceptable. And how many times did you broach, ground or otherwise lose control?

and doesn't even have voices for the crew, sorry, that isn't a "slight flaw", that's a major flaw

Again, why is the lack of a "Bitching Betty" such a problem for you? I have the same feeling about this as the steering. It actually makes you pay attention, which actually makes the net experience closer to the real thing. Think of how many times you have engaged maximum time compression in say Dangerous Waters confident that someone would nicely tell you "Oh we have a new contact" or "Torpedo in the Water", rather than actually paying attention?

CW has more issues.
The AI probably causing the most problems, from enemy subs that regularily ground themselves nose first,

The enemy subs that ground themselves are a problem, but probably it is related to the fact Cold Waters has tried to be relatively ambitious (realistic) about the depth control that makes a reliable depth control algorithm harder to program.

to lackluster torpedo evasion and

The torpedo evasion could be better, but frankly, in aggregate terms (that is, in terms of getting things to hit), it is no worse than the AI torpedo evasion in Dangerous Waters. Further, if they somehow implemented perfect torpedo evasion, all of a sudden they would be very hard to hit. Do you want to waste half your torpedoes trying to kill one sub?

questionable sensor-values/behavior.

Oh yeah, you didn't like the fact they liked to use active sonar, which made you so scared of them now you just fling BoL snapshots on their pinging bearing. If they had done what you wanted them to do, you would have been able to shoot them the way you "wanted" to, with a TMA analysis. In short, even in their flawed state, they are sufficiently threatening to make you do what you did not want to do, and you want to change their behavior so they won't be able to do that. Hmm...

Or what about the silly SEAL/TLAM missions?
Are the devs serious about these!? They are beyond ridiculous, especially the SEALs mission(s). Say "simulation" again please.

Well, I'm sure how Red Storm Rising handled its TLAM mission had something to do with it. They were apparently quite close to the shore. So close they were right next to a Grisha... I suggest you write Tom Clancy ... oh yeah, he's not with us anymore...

Besides, a TLAM mission in the middle of nowhere would be a non-mission. for such a mission, they might as well put a dot on the strategic map you navigate to, then you just click "Fire TLAMs" and it is done.

No neutrals, no friendlies, no nothing - uh, whales, fancy!

Why would there be neutrals that just happen to be in your area when there is a frigging war going on? And the friendlies have been cleared so you can attack freely.

[Shadow]

"Slightest flaws"?
A subsim that claims to deliver the commanders perspective yet forces the player to drive the boat himself (from all the things it has to be that!?) and doesn't even have voices for the crew, sorry, that isn't a "slight flaw", that's a major flaw - as many pointed out on steam and here.
Personally, I consider the lack of voices a deal breaker.
I didn't even ask before release about them, because I considered them to be absolute standard.

And that's just two things.

CW has more issues.
The AI probably causing the most problems, from enemy subs that regularily ground themselves nose first, to lackluster torpedo evasion and questionable sensor-values/behavior.
Or what about the silly SEAL/TLAM missions?
Are the devs serious about these!? They are beyond ridiculous, especially the SEALs mission(s). Say "simulation" again please.

This probably will all be fixed. But I can't see into the future, so I will review what we have so far -and what we have now, is not a sub sim in my books - and that has nothing to do with DW.

Speaking of.
I don't put any Sonalysts titles on a podest, quite the opposite. DW, nor the older ones, aren't perfect - but at least they can be considered a true simulation of submarine warfare, despite some flaws, as they at least deliver a rounded experience. CW still feels like a tablet game that is very empty on a closer look.

No neutrals, no friendlies, no nothing - uh, whales, fancy!

It's a quick-action underwater shooter with some semi-authentic features to create the illusion of a simulation.
If that is the new acceptable standard for "naval simulation", the genre is dead for good indeed.

Feel free to disagree, but this is my honest opinion after multiple campaigns in CW, and years with DW and other titles.
So much for "not being fair".
I suppose the severity of a flaw is a subjective matter, in this case. Personally, I'm all for more control options, and voiceovers will add a lot to the experience, but I can hardly see the lack of those as a critical dealbreaker. To each their own.

Cold Waters does have issues that, while fixable, are current issues nonetheless. They cannot be ignored, but at the same time, being an avid gamer, I know it's par for the course when it comes to freshly-launched games. As long as there's a promise to fix them and the devs aren't significantly overdue, I cannot bury the game for it.

As subsimmers, it behooves us to give them the benefit of patience: if our niche is really this unforgiving, so poised to slam newcomers for not being perfect on release (a supremely unrealistic expectation), it should come as no surprise that hardly anyone ever bothers to bring new entries the genre. The niche would be largely responsible of killing the genre, as opposed to allegedly "unworthy" games.

And to address other specific concerns:

Neutrals? Let's think this through: it's World War III. Neutral shipping will either try to stay the hell away from hot spots, and in the event they have to cross a warzone, it's highly likely they'll be broadcasting their position and neutrality as loudly as possible to avoid being accidentally sunk. They'll also be probably warned off by military surface groups, so you won't find them in any proximity to enemy targets (i.e. not in any immediate mission area).

Friendlies? Modern subs operate alone and largely unsupported (especially in a 1968/1984 scenario). You can be sure there will be other allied submarines and task groups doing their thing, but as a submarine whose primordial purpose is to remain hidden and unknown, you won't be getting close to them. Not tactically, at least.

It comes down to strategic map representation, really. Neutrals would add nothing since they'd be clearly marked as such, you'd know where they are at all times and you wouldn't have anything to do with them. Friendlies could perhaps make an appearance on the general map, but only if a mission explicitly tasks you with acting as a vanguard and clearing the way for them (that'd be interesting), but you'd never coexist with them tactically, within an immediate mission area: you're an unknown contact, and as such you'd only invite friendly fire.

The only exception to this last point I can think of would perhaps be Soviet sub doctrine. I think Soviet subs cooperated at times, and I'm not sure how often, but that's about it.

On the whole, you wouldn't see a strategic map full of unknown icons waiting to be identified because this is a World War with clearly defined sides which are fighting at their fullest capacity. It's not a Harpoon-esque flashpoint scenario with very limited deployments and random "passersby". As a sub commander, you know everything you need to know about your mission, the position of friendlies is likely known but irrelevant to your individual assignment, and so is that of neutrals. Adding all these pointless icons to the strategic view would contribute nothing but clutter, and you'd never find the aforementioned actors mixing in with enemies on the tactical scale your sub operates at.

So yeah, laugh at the whales, but they're literally the only neutral contacts who could randomly wander into a mission area, because a) they're the only ones oblivious to the big human war, and b) they're the only ones physically incapable of communicating they have nothing to do with it.

Well, I'm sure how Red Storm Rising handled its TLAM mission had something to do with it. They were apparently quite close to the shore. So close they were right next to a Grisha... I suggest you write Tom Clancy ... oh yeah, he's not with us anymore...

Besides, a TLAM mission in the middle of nowhere would be a non-mission. for such a mission, they might as well put a dot on the strategic map you navigate to, then you just click "Fire TLAMs" and it is done.
Also, it could be argued that by getting very close to the target, you minimize the chance of the missile being intercepted. Sure, firing a cruise missile from hundreds of miles away would be safer for the sub, but you'd give the enemy ample time to detect the warhead and put a ship in its path to shoot it down. Which would be extremely easy for them considering there's always defending vessels in the vicinity of the target.

[dergrunty]

My main critique point at the moment is the absense of any friendly forces, be it shipping, or air assets, that leads to nonsensical situations.
I just started a new campaign and my first order was to stop a soviet landing force trying to deploy troops at Oslo (mind that at this point, northern europe is firmly in NATO hands).
So I park my boat directly in front of the coast and wait for the convoy. I sink a few ships, the rest turns around. But there is that one pesky helo, one of the escorts launched.
That helo is now calmly searching the entrance of Oslo harbor.
Sorry but situations like this just ruin the immersion. It's one thing to not have any forces ready to attack the convoy before it reaches it's target (Planes, AShMs anyone...). It's a far bigger problem when there is not a single CAP plane present to shoot down a soviet helo, flying deep in NATO territory.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

That helo is now calmly searching the entrance of Oslo harbor.
Sorry but situations like this just ruin the immersion. It's one thing to not have any forces ready to attack the convoy before it reaches it's target (Planes, AShMs anyone...). It's a far bigger problem when there is not a single CAP plane present to shoot down a soviet helo, flying deep in NATO territory.

If they can't launch to attack the ships, why do you think they can launch to kill that helo. The fact the convoy is sailing so openly implies that the Soviets already have air superiority though they hadn't occupied Norway yet so the icons are still blue.

[LoBlo]

Something to change the tone a little bit...

While I was testing my mod, I came across a hidden feature of sorts.

So, I was hunting down an amphibious strike force that was escorted by 3 warships, one of them being Sovremenny. So, I fired a single torpedo at him which did not sink him. But he was damaged and stopped moving so I left him there and turned my attention to transport ships and other escort.

After a while I came to see how he's going and noticed something interesting - the fire was spreading.

After a few more minutes it overwhelmed the ship, there was an explosion and the poor ship sunk.

What a nice surprise. :Kaleun_Applaud:

Yeah, I stumbled upon this too. I hit a convoy which scattered and I was chasing down surviving vessels and about 1 hour later suddenly a wreck showed up. The ship had finally sunk 2nd to fire or flooding. It was a great touch and KF did some nice finish there.

[dergrunty]

If they can't launch to attack the ships, why do you think they can launch to kill that helo. The fact the convoy is sailing so openly implies that the Soviets already have air superiority though they hadn't occupied Norway yet so the icons are still blue.

If they had air superiority, there wouldn't be dozens of spotter planes flying around.

[Nippelspanner]

If they can't launch to attack the ships, why do you think they can launch to kill that helo. The fact the convoy is sailing so openly implies that the Soviets already have air superiority though they hadn't occupied Norway yet so the icons are still blue.
Jesus, you are really reaching hard.

I get it, you really like the game, it is fine.
But the excuses that pile up in this thread start to get silly.

"assume"
"assume"
"assume"

Simulations aren't about having the player assume things.

[sqk7744]

I Agree Gents!

Helm and Command mode would be wonderful. Also, Surround Sound so us Sonar geeks can listen directionally all around the room :)

:arrgh!:

Cheers!
~SQK

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Simulations aren't about having the player assume things.

Nor is it about having the system explicitly explain everything to the player. Try to infer from the situation around you what is happening.

[Nippelspanner]

Nor is it about having the system explicitly explain everything to the player. Try to infer from the situation around you what is happening.
So, As a player in the role of a SSN captain I cannot expect my crew to vocally inform me about what's going on, like in the real thing, I need to do so myself or rely on stupid tiny text, hard to spot and with no log, especially when the action is on and while I have to drive the friggin' boat myself, literally pushing the crew out of the way?

Really?

[dergrunty]

Nor is it about having the system explicitly explain everything to the player. Try to infer from the situation around you what is happening.

No problem: I infer from the ~10 P3 Orions overflying the norwegian sea, day and night, that the soviets do infact not have air supriority.

[LoBlo]

Flame wars about realism in a game. Yay!

The game is what it is. I like the product they produced. Too much "sim" and the game becomes boring as heck. Too much "arcade" and the games too simple to keep interest. Where does the perfect balance lie? Its completely arbitrary.

I like the features KF incorporated. It doesn't need to be a Dangerous Waters reboot. If they whittle away at improvements its become more and more fun with replayability. I'm hoping the mod community really takes off. That's what makes games last IMHO.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

So, As a player in the role of a SSN captain I cannot expect my crew to vocally inform me about what's going on, like in the real thing, I need to do so myself or rely on stupid tiny text, hard to spot and with no log, especially when the action is on and while I have to drive the friggin' boat myself, literally pushing the crew out of the way?

Really?

Let me put it this way, I have one eye blind and the other is barely 20:40, corrected. I can still keep up with that "stupid tiny text". And I'll tell you, I've broached my boat before (multiple times) but I don't blame the game when it happens.

What you are arguing for is formal realism, and I've given you my thoughts on this on Post #53 & #58. They have already tried this approach in the 688I through Dangerous Waters series. I have enjoyed all those games. However, because of that, I am also aware of its weakness - because ultimately, you are not driving a real sub in a real, lethal fight, all that aid plus none of the complications means your Net Cognitive Load is much lower than a real submarine captain, even counting all the training he has and you don't. This is reflected in the frequent use of the Time Compression and 3D view systems - the game isn't stimulating you enough.

Have you considered that part of the point of the manual TMA, sonar and fire control systems (and even the Flood, Equalize and Muzzle Door buttons) in the 688-DW line is to give the otherwise bored player something to do? If it is really about formally simulating the sub commander's experience, those parts will be fully automated. However, to perform at those stations at a level sufficient to beat the AI is not in general difficult (and I am saying this as a person who has no illusions of being a really good player) so you still wind up with a lot of time to spare. Plus, if you need more time, there's always the Almighty Pause button (which has nothing to do with reality, of course).

Cold Waters has another solution to this problem - take away most of the aid you've been getting and make the enemy really lethal. And you know what? It works. As you tacitly admit, now you are task overloaded - your Cognitive Load is now much closer to a real commander in the thick of it. So you have to ask yourself, whether you prefer to be underworked in a subsim that formally reflects reality while actually not, or whether you want to feel like you are working just like a real submarine captain.

No problem: I infer from the ~10 P3 Orions overflying the norwegian sea, day and night, that the soviets do infact not have air supriority.

You saw *10* P3s? I generally only see one or two at most in the map.

[Nippelspanner]

Flame wars about realism in a game. Yay!

It is what it is. I like the product they produced. Too much "sim" and a game its boring as heck. Too much "arcade" and its too simple to keep interest. Where the perfect balance lies is arbitrary.

I like the features that are incorporated. Doesn't need to be another Dangerous Waters reboot. If they whittle away at improvements it fun with replayability. Hoping the mod community really takes off. That's what makes games last IMHO.
I agree with you.

I stated my opinion about this game, dared to call it unfinished/incomplete and got attacked for this opinion, that's what the discussion is about.
I don't care why people think this is the greatest thing since sandwiches, I really don't. But I do care when people tell me my opinion is wrong because theirs is better.

[Nippelspanner]

Let me put it this way, I have one eye blind and the other is barely 20:40, corrected. I can still keep up with that "stupid tiny text". And I'll tell you, I've broached my boat before (multiple times) but I don't blame the game when it happens.
Why are you talking about broaching?! :doh:
I don't care about your eyesight. Be blind for all I care - I dislike the text, how it is handled, that there is no log, and that this is all the "captain" has to rely on, when he should have a crew reporting to him in US navy lingo as much as possible, in a simulation about US submarines where you are the captain!

I will not debate my opinion or taste with you.
I now just ask you to finally accept it.
Will you?


What you are arguing for is formal realism, and I've given you my thoughts on this on Post #53 & #58.
Call it what you want, for me it's bread and butter in a simulation.
Again, you will have to live with the fact that I do not share your point of view, not one bit.
Also, I never asked for your opinion, nor your evaluation of mine.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Why are you talking about broaching?! :doh:

You said "while I have to drive the friggin' boat myself" which suggests part of your frustration is with the manual control. Since I don't think you are complaining about the manual control even though it is a breeze for you, I estimate your frustration is because it is actually challenging.

I dislike the text, how it is handled, that there is no log, and that this is all the "captain" has to rely on, when he should have a crew reporting to him in US navy lingo as much as possible, in a simulation about US submarines where you are the captain!

I can certainly accept it is not your cup of tea. However, there is a difference between saying it is not your cup of tea and that it is "unfinished", based on "missing" features that weren't even part of the original design or concept, and are probably antithetical to it. Or calling AI enemies "dumb" even though they are actually threatening to you (which is their most important game function). Or not realizing both CW and DW/SC/688 rely on manual work to drive up the player's workload, only that CW succeeds in making the player work harder.

[dergrunty]

You saw *10* P3s? I generally only see one or two at most in the map.

Really? Thats your answer? Semantics? It doesn't matter how many. As soon as the soviets have AS there would not be a single, vulnerable, multi-engine turboprop flying around.
It just makes no sense, that there are no other NATO assets around, when I'm 2 miles off the coast of norway at the beginning of the campaign. That was my original critque, and so far, I haven't seen a reasonable explanation for this.
This is just one point thats lackluster in the game, there are many more.

e.g.:


control of the sub
crew voices
enemy sub and surface ai
lack of mission variety (in 9/10 cases: go there, sink that)


The devs released their game in this lackluster state, so people rightfully complain. It definitly doesn't help that you try to sweep any piece of criticism under the rug.

[VolvicCH]

Also, I never asked for your opinion, nor your evaluation of mine.

You know how forums work, right?

[Nippelspanner]

You said "while I have to drive the friggin' boat myself" which suggests part of your frustration is with the manual control. Since I don't think you are complaining about the manual control even though it is a breeze for you, I estimate your frustration is because it is actually challenging.
So in other words, just another straw-man so we won't have to focus on the actual criticism made by me?
If you must know, I broached once. First tutorial. Big deal.
Never grounded my sub, never collided with anything.
There goes your irrelevant assumption.
Also, I never gave you any reason to pull things out of yours, I explained why I strongly dislike being forced to rely on manual controls, you simply won't accept this - but that is your problem, not mine.
And no way how you try to twist it, having the Captain to control the sub 100% manually, or manual at all for that matter, is flat out retarded in a simulation that claims to put you in the captains perspective.
End of.



I can certainly accept it is not your cup of tea. However, there is a difference between saying it is not your cup of tea and that it is "unfinished", based on "missing" features that weren't even part of the original design or concept, and are probably antithetical to it. Or calling AI enemies "dumb" even though they are actually threatening to you (which is their most important game function).
Excuse me?
Who are you talking to?
Where did I say the enemy is threatening? I actually often said the opposite and complained about how I take down multiple SSN with them not evading torpedoes efficiently, or at least shooting back at the bearing of my, very loud, Mk48!

Stop pulling things out of thin air, this is almost slander.


Or not realizing both CW and DW/SC/688 rely on manual work to drive up the player's workload, only that CW succeeds in making the player work harder.
Wrong.
DW is a sensor and station sim. The very point of it is clicking buttons.
There goes your argument.


I shared my honest opinion about CW in its current state.
As I said, just try to live with it.

[PL_Harpoon]

What you are arguing for is formal realism, and I've given you my thoughts on this on Post #53 & #58. They have already tried this approach in the 688I through Dangerous Waters series. I have enjoyed all those games. However, because of that, I am also aware of its weakness - because ultimately, you are not driving a real sub in a real, lethal fight, all that aid plus none of the complications means your Net Cognitive Load is much lower than a real submarine captain, even counting all the training he has and you don't. This is reflected in the frequent use of the Time Compression and 3D view systems - the game isn't stimulating you enough.

Have you considered that part of the point of the manual TMA, sonar and fire control systems (and even the Flood, Equalize and Muzzle Door buttons) in the 688-DW line is to give the otherwise bored player something to do? If it is really about formally simulating the sub commander's experience, those parts will be fully automated. However, to perform at those stations at a level sufficient to beat the AI is not in general difficult (and I am saying this as a person who has no illusions of being a really good player) so you still wind up with a lot of time to spare. Plus, if you need more time, there's always the Almighty Pause button (which has nothing to do with reality, of course).

Cold Waters has another solution to this problem - take away most of the aid you've been getting and make the enemy really lethal. And you know what? It works. As you tacitly admit, now you are task overloaded - your Cognitive Load is now much closer to a real commander in the thick of it. So you have to ask yourself, whether you prefer to be underworked in a subsim that formally reflects reality while actually not, or whether you want to feel like you are working just like a real submarine captain.


I'm sorry man, I enjoy this game a lot, more that DW even but some of your arguments are just bizarre, to say the least.

What aid in DW are you talking about? Having a helmsman? I assure you, nobody would complain if Sonalyst would create fully working helm station with manual controls in DW. I also doubt they didn't do it to "aid" the player somehow. My guess would be that didn't feel it was necessary in the game - a thought which seemed consistent with pretty much every subsim developer. And I don't mean that the devs should remove manual controls from the game. They're fine and have their uses. But saying that the game shouldn't have optional direct commands is like saying you shouldn't have an autopilot in a flight sim, because "it will make you push that dreadful 'accelerate time' button".

And the argument, that removing manual TMA and sonar and replacing them with mandatory manual helm controls will somehow overload the player is just absurd. Steering the boat does not require half as much focus and brain-power as working a TMA solution. It does, however require player's attention. And just like some of us find searching for solutions tedious, others find piloting the boat tedious.

And my last point is... there's nothing wrong with time-acceleration during the boring bits.

[Nippelspanner]

You know how forums work, right?
Yes, and I don't mind an exchange of opinions.
However, I do mind people not accepting my opinion, literally claiming it is wrong because theirs is right.

Do you understand this - or will I have to explain?

[Philipp_Thomsen]

Let me rephrase what I said about SIM vs Arcade.

There's no clear line that divides the two, it's just common sense.
For example:

ArmA 3 is a simulator, while Battlefield 3 is arcade.
Project Cars is a simulator, while Gran Turismo 5 is arcade.

This is not set on stone, but it's common knowledge and most agree.
Sure there's always the die-hard fan of GT5 that stubbornly refuses to admit PCars is more of a sim than GT5, but we usually ignore those.

It's like what my signature states.

You can always throw gasoline in the fire in this argument saying that
"hey, there's a submarine and it goes up and down and it has a periscope and it can fire torpedoes, therefore is a simulator"

But in the same light then I could say MS Window's "Minesweeper" is a great minefield simulator. It has the mines and they can blow up.

Bottomline is, Cold Waters is what it is and I can appreciate what they are trying to do and I'm sure there's a lot of
people out there who will be able to have fun with it, as they are interested in arcadish aspects of games, but I'm not.

You may also say "but in real life, did captains turn knobs, pressed buttons or turn on/off switches?"
No, they gave orders for someone else to do it. HOWEVER, if they wanted to, they could.
So, the more options the game gives, and the most realistic those options are, the more of a simulator it will be.
Driving your sub around in 3rd person camera using WASD is, in my opinion, as arcade as a game can get.
It's my opinion, I'm entitled to one.

I'm not at all interested in persuading CW developers to release updates that add more to the realism, nope.
The game is what it is, and I'm simply not interested in it. I'm just slightly surprised to see a game such as CW here at Subsim.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Really? Thats your answer? Semantics? It doesn't matter how many. As soon as the soviets have AS there would not be a single, vulnerable, multi-engine turboprop flying around.

In 1984, the Soviets did not have fighters with good look down capability (the MiG-31 is a PVO interceptor and also quite new at that point), so it is actually realistic for an occasional P-3, flying low, to be able to sneak past any patrols. Doesn't that thought kind of make the game touching - the P-3 pilots risking death to fly their missions? I thought you wanted air support?

You know extremely little about the broader picture while playing the campaign (as is realistic). But even though you know very little, you automatically accuse. If you had promptly died to a Silex, and that ARG landed, some infantryman in Norway may well be thinking about why "no NATO assets" helped them out. Would that be fair?


control of the sub
crew voices
lack of mission variety (in 9/10 cases: go there, sink that)


Read my previous comments on the first two. As for the third, isn't that realistic?

[Nippelspanner]

You can always throw gasoline in the fire in this argument saying that
"hey, there's a submarine and it goes up and down and it has a periscope and it can fire torpedoes, therefore is a simulator"

But in the same light then I could say MS Window's "Minesweeper" is a great minefield simulator. It has the mines and they can blow up.

Bottomline is, Cold Waters is what it is and I can appreciate what they are trying to do and I'm sure there's a lot of
people out there who will be able to have fun with it, as they are interested in arcadish aspects of games, but I'm not.
Very well said!

[PL_Harpoon]

You can always throw gasoline in the fire in this argument saying that
"hey, there's a submarine and it goes up and down and it has a periscope and it can fire torpedoes, therefore is a simulator"

You can throw even more gasoline saying it's arcade. :D

I'm just slightly surprised to see a game such as CW here at Subsim.

If you're interested, you can actually find out, but you'll have to put up with WSAD controls. Or wait until the devs add proper commands. Either way if you could spend enough time with the game you'd find out that there's enough things in CW that would classify it as a sim. Just not a hardcore one.

[Nippelspanner]

In 1984, the Soviets did not have fighters with good look down capability (the MiG-31 is a PVO interceptor and also quite new at that point), so it is actually realistic for an occasional P-3, flying low, to be able to sneak past any patrols. Doesn't that thought kind of make the game touching - the P-3 pilots risking death to fly their missions? I thought you wanted air support?
I don't even... :doh:

[VolvicCH]

Yes, and I don't mind an exchange of opinions.
However, I do mind people not accepting my opinion, literally claiming it is wrong because theirs is right.

Do you understand this - or will I have to explain?


Then maybe you should have written that, rather than what you actually wrote. Do you understand that or should I explain? :up:

[Nippelspanner]

Then maybe you should have written that, rather than what you actually wrote. Do you understand that or should I explain? :up:
You are correct of course.
It was my mistake to assume some people would get the point anyways.

This still doesn't explain your off-topic drive-by posting though.
Your comment is off topic and only derails the thread.

[VolvicCH]

You are correct of course.
It was my mistake to assume some people would get the point anyways.

This still doesn't explain your off-topic drive-by posting though.
Your comment is off topic and only derails the thread.

I just thought your original comment was incredibly stupid, given the nature of the medium we are using. Now that you have clarified, it makes a bit more sense of course.

:yeah:

[Nippelspanner]

I just thought your original comment was incredibly stupid, given the nature of the medium we are using. Now that you have clarified, it makes a bit more sense of course.

:yeah:

I guess misunderstandings happen.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Also, I never gave you any reason to pull things out of yours, I explained why I strongly dislike being forced to rely on manual controls, you simply won't accept this - but that is your problem, not mine.

Let me put it this way. Either this manual control (and also, the requirement you read the screen) is putting significant stress on your cognitive faculties or it isn't. If it is (and your wording so far implies such to me), then it is by design, is (IMO) healthy, and certainly not a basis for saying the product is unfinished.

And if it isn't a significant congitive load, is there really anything complaining about? You call a game "unfinished" because of a supposed flaw that only caused an insignificant cognitive load on you in any case?

Where did I say the enemy is threatening? I actually often said the opposite and complained about how I take down multiple SSN with them not evading torpedoes efficiently, or at least shooting back at the bearing of my, very loud, Mk48!

I have conceded at a fairly early stage that the evasion system isn't all that it could be, leaving the active sonar thing. Let's go and look at your post:
See above, and they do always detect you.
Not with the first ping necessarily, but sooner or later they will, except distance is growing, then they may never detect you, but mostly I find the enemy approaching me/closing distance.
However, since sending a fish down the first active-intercept bearing is enough in CW in very most cases, it doesn't even matter.

It shows how lackluster this tactic is, though.

To this reader, though you did not admit it directly, that's threatening. What you probably really wanted to do here is do things "right" and make a proper TMA solution before shooting. But because of their aggressive use of active sonar, you did not feel safe doing that, so instead you flip off fish at the pings. While that does work due to the Mark 48's excellence, the relatively close ranges, and their evasion technique not being all that it could be, it still forced you to adapt to it, and I think it is only sporting to admit to that.

Further, here:
The Victor III started pinging me after the engagement with the Victor I was over. Until then, it stayed silent - and undetected!

The Victor-III was actually doing something kind of smart. It already knows you are out there somewhere (no more saying he was unprovoked) and is trying to find you. Your implied solution that he should have stayed passive is mitigated by the fact that you have a 22dB noise superiority over him (115 v 137), expanding to 23dB counting the bow sonar and 27dB counting the towed array (48 v 44). With up to a 27dB acoustic advantage, where is the basis for him thinking his interest was staying passive?

DW is a sensor and station sim. The very point of it is clicking buttons.

So, you can forgive one sim because you labeled it in your mind as A and another sim flunks in your mind because it is labeled B?

That aid in DW are you talking about? Having a helmsman?

I know I am outnumbered by about 100:1 here but yes, that, and I wasn't specifically referring to DW there - the most universal, commonly given "aid" in all of subsims seems to be the automatic helm and plane control.

I assure you, nobody would complain if Sonalyst would create fully working helm station with manual controls in DW.

In case you hadn't realized it, there is actually already a helm station (just not a plane station) in DW - just click on the right parts of the rudder window to manually set the rudder.

You probably don't need the helm as much in DW anyway, for the simple reason that the torpedoes in DW are much less persistent. You can dodge them just fine using the bearing intercept receiver and the automatic control system. Everyone is staring desperately out the 3D view in Cold Waters because the torpedoes are persistent in their reattacks.

But saying that the game shouldn't have optional direct commands is like saying you shouldn't have an autopilot in a flight sim, because "it will make you push that dreadful 'accelerate time' button".

The two are not comparable. A autopilot in a flight sim typically only keeps the plane flying straight and level (and if you just want Straight and Level, Cold Waters has that), or flying between waypoints in a non-combat situation. It is not really helpful in a combat situation so once plane get into the combat zone, the gamer takes control of the plane himself.

In a subsim, the automatic steering dominates in virtually all circumstances, including combat.

And the argument, that removing manual TMA and sonar and replacing them with mandatory manual helm controls will somehow overload the player is just absurd. Steering the boat does not require half as much focus and brain-power as working a TMA solution. It does, however require player's attention. And just like some of us find searching for solutions tedious, others find piloting the boat tedious.

Speaking as a person that has never really mastered TMA, it is nevertheless easy to do once you get enough signal to classify the target and the DEMON shows the first blade - at that point you get speed and once you lock speed and bearing, fiddling that onscreen sliderule to get course and range is not that hard. It is hard (beyond my ability, honestly) without that, but with that it is easy.

Further, DW is not really that punitive compared to CW so even if you are stuck or just feel things aren't going fast enough for you ... let's just say I confess to the sin of using radar and active sonar ... and DW let's me get away with it. Plus there's a pause button, which no one seems to complain as unrealistic.

Now, I'm not sure whether manual helm "should" overload the player. I do, however, notice a large amount of complaints over this topic. I also notice that more than one Youtuber with a video where they "mysteriously" broached. I actually have a confession (he's blaming the game, of course) from a "Brygun" over at Steamcommunity where he was having fun with the 3D camera watching his weapon hit a ship while on ascent to periscope depth ... then he broached and died. That along with my own experience suggests that the manual helm puts a significant (and IMO healthy) cognitive load on the average player, certainly forcing them to pay attention.

And shouldn't the captain "pay attention" to his subs' maneuvers? But realistic subsims don't really make us do that. They might make us care about the TMA solution, but maneuvering seems beneath our notice, something to be fobbed off to the Autocrew. The result are players like Brygun, whose inattentiveness cost him his game, yet he blames the game!

And my last point is... there's nothing wrong with time-acceleration during the boring bits.

Maybe there is nothing "wrong", but it definitely has nothing to do with real submariner mentality over the same situation. It is also a sign a game is not putting enough cognitive load on the player if it is has to be used too often.

[Shadow]

My main critique point at the moment is the absense of any friendly forces, be it shipping, or air assets, that leads to nonsensical situations.
I just started a new campaign and my first order was to stop a soviet landing force trying to deploy troops at Oslo (mind that at this point, northern europe is firmly in NATO hands).
So I park my boat directly in front of the coast and wait for the convoy. I sink a few ships, the rest turns around. But there is that one pesky helo, one of the escorts launched.
That helo is now calmly searching the entrance of Oslo harbor.
Sorry but situations like this just ruin the immersion. It's one thing to not have any forces ready to attack the convoy before it reaches it's target (Planes, AShMs anyone...). It's a far bigger problem when there is not a single CAP plane present to shoot down a soviet helo, flying deep in NATO territory.

This is situational, yet a very valid point, actually. Hadn't considered it. An easy way to handle this would be to implement an off-map SAM/AAM strike X minutes after the helo's launch, as long as the encounter's taking place within a certain distance of NATO-held territory. Around Oslo, NATO would be on high alert, especially if they're aware the area's been chosen by the Soviets for an amphibious landing: anti-air missiles would be lancing towards the helo(s) in virtually no time at all.

[Julhelm]

This is generally only a case in those rare situations where you encounter enemy forces literally next to their target itself.

When we get around to doing the Soviet campaign and modelling all the NATO assets, then we'll have the assets available to enable some of these friendlies in the campaign, similar to Strike Fighters.

Also I don't get this fanatical devotion to 'realism'. This game most closely resembles the old Microprose 'action sims' or Novalogic 'light sims' which focused on entertaining action but with real world units with real-world performance. This insistence on real world stats is what sets sims apart from arcade games - Ace Combat has meticolously modelled real-world planes and cockpits, but there is no flight model, no weapon parameters, etc. Novalogic's F-22 on the other hand is a sim - it has rudimentary radar modes, different types of aircraft have different stats in line with published figures, and weapons behave and feel like they are based on the real thing. The fact that Falcon 4 was available at the same time and much more hardcore realistic doesn't mean F-22 automatically gets denigrated to an arcade game. It's just a more casual take on the same idea. You will find a lot of people fondly remember this style of 'lite sim' even today.

[PL_Harpoon]

And if it isn't a significant congitive load, is there really anything complaining about? You call a game "unfinished" because of a supposed flaw that only caused an insignificant cognitive load on you in any case?

Perhaps because it detracts from immersing yourself in being a captain? At least that's my (and I believe I'm not alone here) main complaint here.


I know I am outnumbered by about 100:1 here but yes, that, and I wasn't specifically referring to DW there - the most universal, commonly given "aid" in all of subsims seems to be the automatic helm and plane control.

The thing is, the manual controls doesn't make the game more challenging. They actually help with torpedo evasion.
Perhaps this will make you understand our problem:
I want to change course from 0 to 90.
In Fast Attack (or DW) I give appropriate orders and fast forward until the task is complete.
In Cold Waters (vanilla) I put rudder at 30, fast forward until I reach 85 and press X to level it.
Nothing was gained gameplay wise, but something was lost. For that moment of turning instead of feeling like a captain I felt like a child with RC boat.

In case you hadn't realized it, there is actually already a helm station (just not a plane station) in DW - just click on the right parts of the rudder window to manually set the rudder.

Yeah, right. I forgot about that. :D But there's still no manual planes/ballast controls.


Everyone is staring desperately out the 3D view in Cold Waters because the torpedoes are persistent in their reattacks.


Well, not everyone, and definitely not "desperately ". I for one do all my defensive manoeuvres from the tactical map. And I find dodging torpedoes in CW very easy. Only when there's more than 2 I feel really threatened (and I mean 3 torps that can kill you with one hit).


The two are not comparable. A autopilot in a flight sim typically only keeps the plane flying straight and level (and if you just want Straight and Level, Cold Waters has that), or flying between waypoints in a non-combat situation. It is not really helpful in a combat situation so once plane get into the combat zone, the gamer takes control of the plane himself.

In a subsim, the automatic steering dominates in virtually all circumstances, including combat.

I think this is where we mainly disagree regarding the manual control. You seem to think, that manual controls are somewhat challenging during combat while to me combat (especially defensive) is actually one time where I would use manual controls even if there was an option to just give orders.


Speaking as a person that has never really mastered TMA, it is nevertheless easy to do once you get enough signal to classify the target and the DEMON shows the first blade - at that point you get speed and once you lock speed and bearing, fiddling that onscreen sliderule to get course and range is not that hard. It is hard (beyond my ability, honestly) without that, but with that it is easy.

It may be easy when you are tracking a single target in a calm environment. But definetely not when you have multiple manoeuvring targets and torpedoes coming your way. But this is not the case of more difficult = better. And I don't want TMA in CW. But just as I don't like to be (practically) forced to do TMA in DW when I don't want to, I don't want to do manual steering in CW.


And shouldn't the captain "pay attention" to his subs' maneuvers? But realistic subsims don't really make us do that.

Honestly, I very much doubt that a captain would order the helm to change course and then stare at the instruments over the shoulder of a helmsman. Unless it's out of boredom. You know what's more dangerous than piloting the boat? Loading torpedoes. And I don't think that a captain is staring at a CCTV screen while the torpedoes are being loaded "just to make sure". No, when he gives orders to change depth he has to trust his helmsmen to do their job. Besides, he has a helm officer (or whatever he's called - the guy who sits behind the "pilots") to supervise them.


They might make us care about the TMA solution, but maneuvering seems beneath our notice, something to be fobbed off to the Autocrew. The result are players like Brygun, whose inattentiveness cost him his game, yet he blames the game!

Again, one of the reasons why I like CW is that it doesn't force me to do TMA (which btw I generally really like to do, just not as a captain). it's that it forces me to be another crew member. For me, the appeal of original RSR
was that it didn't force you do impersonate any crew member.


Maybe there is nothing "wrong", but it definitely has nothing to do with real submariner mentality over the same situation. It is also a sign a game is not putting enough cognitive load on the player if it is has to be used too often.
I'm sure the life of every sailor - submariner or not - is filled with boredom and waiting. A proper sim acknowledges that and gives you, as a player, a way to skip those parts with time acceleration. CW is no exception here.
Stating for the n-th time in this post - the lack of giving orders is bad not because it makes the game difficult - it's because every time you have to manually steer the boat it reminds you that you're playing a game, effectively braking immersion.

[Shadow]

The fact that Falcon 4 was available at the same time and much more hardcore realistic doesn't mean F-22 automatically gets denigrated to an arcade game. It's just a more casual take on the same idea. You will find a lot of people fondly remember this style of 'lite sim' even today.
I agree. There's several degrees of simulation, and Dangerous Waters' is quite detailed, but just because it's a hardcore sim doesn't mean everything below it in complexity is instantly arcade.

Cold Waters still has far more than a passing attention to detail and realism, even if stuff like stations isn't as extensively modelled as they are in other subsims. It's far, far from being the Ace Combat of subsims. So it's not DW2, but it never intended to be, nor it's required to be.

[Wiz33]

It's not "bull", it is my opinion which I based on examples and facts.
You still did not deliver any argument except "DW sucks because reasons and CW is super awesome because my name is in the Harpoon credits 200 years ago!"

Come back once you do have an argument besides fallacies.

By you definition. DW is un-finished. They put in a feature that you can hand off varies function to your crew except they are more than useless. Now there's an un-finished game if you ever wants one. Your problem is that you expect to see things in this game that was never promised. Sorry kid, you can't get everything you want. (even when it was promise to you, but certainly not in this case) maybe you would understand once you grow up. As I said. If you fett that certain feature should be included at this price, I can understand. but to call a game un-finished because it does not include features that was never promised is just BULL.

[Shadow]

By you definition. DW is un-finished. They put in a feature that you can hand off varies function to your crew except they are more than useless. Now there's an un-finished game if you ever wants one. Your problem is that you expect to see things in this game that was never promised. Sorry kid, you can't get everything you want. (even when it was promise to you, but certainly not in this case) maybe you would understand once you grow up. As I said. If you fett that certain feature should be included at this price, I can understand. but to call a game un-finished because it does not include features that was never promised is just BULL.

That's become an argument of semantics. Cold Waters will be "unfinished" for as long as KFG intends to keep adding content to it. It's not an intrinsically negative trait. I'd say it's more positive than anything, as long as they keep working on it.

It will only be finished once the devs decide to put a bow on it and deem it so.

It really has no bearing on the game's quality unless, come the decision to call it finished, it falls short of expectations. But that's a very subjective perception and expectations will vary from person to person. I personally believe CW will only get better with time.

[Nippelspanner]

Let me put it this way. Either this manual control (and also, the requirement you read the screen) is putting significant stress on your cognitive faculties or it isn't. If it is (and your wording so far implies such to me), then it is by design, is (IMO) healthy, and certainly not a basis for saying the product is unfinished.

And if it isn't a significant congitive load, is there really anything complaining about? You call a game "unfinished" because of a supposed flaw that only caused an insignificant cognitive load on you in any case?
Seriously.
What is wrong with you?
Is my English that bad, that insufficient?
Do I fail so badly to bring my points across that I have to explain them to you like I would to a child, and still have to repeat myself multiple times?
Because I start to wonder what else I can do here.

Because I am a well meaning soul though, I will try just one more time, because you seem to be special:

I dislike being forced, without an alternative, to manual controls, because this game said to put you in the position and role of the captain - not a helmsman, diving officer and planesman.
To be able to drive manually, is super cool! The more, the merrier!
To be forced to do it, instead of doing it realistically by giving orders to your crew, is not.

Now, is this opinion of mine acceptable for you?
Stop being ridiculous.



To this reader, though you did not admit it directly, that's threatening.There was nothing to "admit", as there was no threat at all.
Stop making assumptions.



What you probably really wanted to do here is do things "right" and make a proper TMA solution before shooting.
No, what I wanted is a nice game, what I got were pings at max selected range doing 5kts (ambush as usual), seconds after being ingame.
I didn't even have time to cycle through the already detected contacts until the first ping went off.
TMA? What for in this underwater-shooter? :har:
Also, to further point out your annoying, nonsensical and inflammatory behavior of consistently assuming things about people instead of simply addressing what they actually said can be very well seen in this very example.
You even quoted the very post where I said:
However, since sending a fish down the first active-intercept bearing is enough in CW in very most cases, it doesn't even matter.
Yeah, probably "because I tried to do TMA".
Stop making assumptions.


But because of their aggressive use of active sonar, you did not feel safe doing that, so instead you flip off fish at the pings.
Uh, yeah, because enemy submarines are so very dangerous in Cold Waters...
See above to learn why I send a fish down the bearing immediately.
Oh and: Stop making assumptions.



While that does work due to the Mark 48's excellence, the relatively close ranges, and their evasion technique not being all that it could be, it still forced you to adapt to it, and I think it is only sporting to admit to that.
What are you even talking about? :doh:
The enemy gave me his bearing instantly and committed suicide because all I had to do was to send a Mk48 down-bearing and hit time compression so I can get on with the campaign already.

Uhhh, boy did Ivan "force me big time to play his game", sitting on the bottom of the Norwegian Sea, his lungs filled with salt water, his eyes open, staring into the darkness...
Meanwhile I received medals and was declared a "war hero" days later.
Again: Stop making assumptions.


You're still doing the same mistake: You are not addressing any of my arguments and points, you ignore them and pull wild assumptions out of your behind because otherwise your "arguments" go *poof!*.

Stop that.

Now, a pinging sub in this game is everything but "threatening".
They ping so often, I started to ignore it.
I argued that this makes it EASIER for the player, as all you need to do is to send a torpedo down the active-intercept bearing.


(no more saying he was unprovoked)Ok, this is where it ends and where I will call for moderation to step in.
I do not need you to tell me what I can say and what not, nor will I further tolerate your incredibly inflammatory and slandering behavior, now even implying that I am a liar.It is pointless to continue this, as you still do not address what I said, but simply form your own little version of what people say and then go by that. I have to admit though, this is somewhat mind-blowing. :hmmm:

[LeopardDriver]

Why do you discuss the points here? This topic would be much more useful if it was just a list of things we like or don`t.

:Kaleun_Applaud:

[difool2]

[delurking, have not bought the sim yet]

I'll just point out that neutral and friendly traffic (incl. air assets) simply would add to the immersion if nothing else, give you a sense that, no, you are not the only allied asset in the entire theatre (if not world), and that, if necessary, your friends could and would cooperate with you in defeating the enemy.

Note that typically at least one sub is attached to every US carrier group. So imagine a campaign where you fight alongside them while they launch strikes, you occ. get orders from the admiral in question as he radios in threats to you. I don't know about you, but that kind of thing can get my blood flowing in a hurry.

I guess I dislike set piece scenarios. <shrug>

[Wiz33]

There is already a mod for allied shipping. Try that out. I'm just going to wait till the Dev implement them officially but no reason for you to wait.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I dislike being forced, without an alternative, to manual controls, because this game said to put you in the position and role of the captain - not a helmsman, diving officer and planesman.
To be able to drive manually, is super cool! The more, the merrier!
To be forced to do it, instead of doing it realistically by giving orders to your crew, is not.

You can certainly like or dislike this point. However, to say it is unfinished is unobjective. Further, I'll argue when the entire reality of subsimming is taken into consideration, forcing you to do it actually brings you closer to the captain's experience because it forces you to monitor your maneuver and choose reasonable maneuvers, both of which are realistic elements.

The enemy gave me his bearing instantly and committed suicide because all I had to do was to send a Mk48 down-bearing and hit time compression so I can get on with the campaign already.

And if he didn't, given the situation, you will simply have found him on passive sonar, and given your habit you will snapshot on that contact and then he will die, without ever having had a chance. You cannot equate "It didn't work" or even "As it turned out, it sped up the end for him" with "It was a bad tactic." In fact, it also shows that the game did not cheat by quietly hinting to the AI sub where you are, allowing him to make an informed decision as to whether to ping.

Ok, this is where it ends and where I will call for moderation to step in.

Wow, cool it there. I meant it that one about the Victor III as a light-hearted reference to your constantly saying the subs ping without provocation (and you know that time, that wouldn't be true, since you just killed his bud).

Perhaps this will make you understand our problem:
I want to change course from 0 to 90.
In Fast Attack (or DW) I give appropriate orders and fast forward until the task is complete.
In Cold Waters (vanilla) I put rudder at 30, fast forward until I reach 85 and press X to level it.
Nothing was gained gameplay wise, but something was lost. For that moment of turning instead of feeling like a captain I felt like a child with RC boat.

I believe your feeling about being a "child with RC boat" is genuine (though I don't share it, at least not as much), but let me try to point out some things you gained. In Cold Waters, you have to remember (be responsible for) you've given the maneuver so you can stop it - though you can run off and do other things quickly in mid-turn. In DW (since I never played Fast Attack), once you've given the order, you can forget all about having given it. This sense of responsibility is actually a immersion-increase.

Further, helm control was clearly an area they deliberately kept simple for the players (and possibly the AI - if the AI spun out of control in course as well as depth during evasive manuevers this game will indeed BE unfinished!) In depth control, in DW, you can do this.

You are at 600 feet and want to be at 60 feet faster than the ordinary command will bring you to it (you don't need to; you are just impatient). You can actually blow your MBT, then vent and tell your helm to set a depth of 60 feet, and he will clean up after you, thus you get away with doing such things. The ability to do that reminds one instantly that he is playing a game.

In CW, you don't get such cleanup assistance, so before you rashly order a 30-degree rise, maximum positive ballast ascent, you have to consider the reality that someone would have to clean up after you - because you get to do it. So you learn to not do it lightly and make more +5 or +10 movements, resembling a real submariner's choice - that's the gain.

Once we actually get automated steering (which seems a certainty now), if it is as good as the ones in my experience, then we'll be able to do that all over again. The autocrew will fix the abuses you made. Does that really increase that "feeling like a captain" thing.

[cj95]

I'm the minority, but I really LIKE the manual helm controls.


I find them quite rewarding and pray you do not remove them.

Thanks for an awesome game!

[Able72]

Like
1. The eye candy is pretty good (the damage models could be better and the explosions could look better as well.)

2. I like the 'news articles'. They add a very global sense to the game.

Dislikes
1. I don't like the lack of a clickable navigation gui/hud.

2. Only being able to navigate in combat by keyboard based rudder/plane/ballast/engine controls rather than being able to 'set depth'.

3. The lack of a crew voice acknowledging commands

4. The lack of any sort of notification that your taking damage. I can't tell you how many times I've turned on time compression to get closer to a vessel before I fire, stopped time compression to fire only
to discover that my hull is now at 57%. I Should be notified when I take damage. It should not be able to go unnoticed.

5. The lack of clearly defined targets or patrol zones when in the tactical map. I leave port and have to pause the game to try to figure out where my patrol area is and many times I end up engaging the wrong target. I'm sorry I'm not an expert in European World Geography. Please draw me a little red/blue circle or some sort of icon telling me where on the tactical map I need to go.

6. The default tactical map controls are reversed from what are listed in the manual. Left mouse is fast, right mouse is patrol.

7. That there is only 1 level of time compression and I don't know how fast that one is.

8. The inability to save during combat. Please, some of these combat missions take a few hours. I have real life concerns, job, etc. and can't afford to spend an unknown amount of time finishing a battle. I need to be able to manually save in the midst of combat and come back to it later.

9. The tactical map and combat feel very disjointed. In the Silent Hunter series it always feels like I am in the boat. even when I'm cruising on the navigation map (tactical map) I still feel like I am on the boat. Largely because I can go to other views at will. With this, it feels like I am 'scenario hunting' from the tactical map and only on the boat in combat.

[Raptor_Pilot]

For the sake of discussion, can we not simply take it as read that Cold Waters is not Dangerous Waters, and vice-versa?
I'm getting tired of seeing, "But it's NOT THE SAME!" being argued as if the two games were ever supposed to be such blood brothers in the first place.
They. Are. Not. The. Same. Deal. With. It.

There's absolutely NOTHING about Cold Waters that is remotely related to a "simulator".

Sound velocity, ambient noise, submarine noise, bottom bounce, and transient sounds are all modeled. Even sound convergence zones are modeled, despite the fact you never use them.
Aw, snap, sounds a bit "Sim-Like" to me...

ArmA 3 is a simulator, while Battlefield 3 is arcade.
Project Cars is a simulator, while Gran Turismo 5 is arcade.

So, the most realistic driving physics model ever programmed into a game makes it an Arcade Game?
Lol, wut?

The Sim-vs-Arcade argument is not about features, or style of game controls, it's about the FIDELITY OF SIMULATION.
Cold Waters, for all of it's simplistic presentation, has some very deep and capable simulation running underneath the surface. That makes it a sim, whether you like it or not.
Is a tank simulator suddenly not a simulator because it requires you to manually drive your tank, and aim and fire your guns instead of ordering your crew to accomplish those tasks for you?

Does it simulate everything? No.
Does it simulate ENOUGH things? Yes.

So far as the arguments about control schemes go, let me say this:
In a flight simulator, no matter how good your autopilot is, you still need to manually take off and land.
No matter what you do, you cannot avoid manually flying your aircraft.
So tell me, why does Cold Waters have to be any different?
The developers have stated their intention to add some kind of autopilot functionality into the game, so as far as I'm concerned, any complaints about the control scheme are moot the moment that is released.

Now, to get back on topic:

Likes:
1) THE MUSIC.
2) Eye Candy.
3) Icebergs.
4) Shooting myself with my own torpedo.
5) Being able to do things sneakily, or fast and loud, as I choose.
6) Sinking the Moskva.
7) Outrunning my own Mk37 Torpedo in the Skipjack just for fun.
8) I don't know about everyone else, but simple audio cues and scrolling notifications are enough for me to maintain situational awareness. I never did like the constant litany of "New Contact Acquired" that you get in other games. It's a convoy. I'm aware there are a dozen contacts. You don't need to carefully inform me about every single one of them.

Dislikes:
1) The Mk37 Torpedo.
2) Shooting myself with my own torpedo.
3) The lack of an autopilot.
4) Failing a mission while tied up at the dock.
5) Killing enemy ships doesn't seem to reduce their overall campaign strength. (I.E. If I sink a few dozen ships, the frequency of enemy surface ships appearance should lower a bit, right?)
6) I would like the text notifications to be persistent, and not to disappear until replaced by new ones. Should be a simple fix to the, "I need my crew to yell at me or I'm blind and deaf!" problem.

Other than that, I'm enjoying the heck out of this game, and from what I've seen of patches and future plans, I'll be playing this for years.

[Nippelspanner]

For the sake of discussion, can we not simply take it as read that Cold Waters is not Dangerous Waters, and vice-versa?
I'm getting tired of seeing, "But it's NOT THE SAME!" being argued as if the two games were ever supposed to be such blood brothers in the first place.
They. Are. Not. The. Same. Deal. With. It.
And, who here said "CW should be a clone of DW"? :hmmm:
No one. Your whole point is moot. :yeah:



Sound velocity, ambient noise, submarine noise, bottom bounce, and transient sounds are all modeled. Even sound convergence zones are modeled, despite the fact you never use them.
Aw, snap, sounds a bit "Sim-Like" to me...
True. But someone also provided a good example (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2494526&postcount=81) about the whole "what's sim to you ain't sim to me" issue.
It is up to you to accept that people hold different opinions.
We can throw around words and definitions all day, but that won't change that some people feel that CW is a little too... thin... to be called a simulation.
Don't agree?
Fine with me, I just wish this favor would be returned for once in this thread full of people acting like they are personally attacked by other people's opinions of this title.
It's extremely silly, to say the least.


Cold Waters, for all of it's simplistic presentation, has some very deep and capable simulation running underneath the surface. That makes it a sim, whether you like it or not.
Hehehehe...yeah, something like that.
Show me something of that "deep and capable simulation running underneath the surface", besides the rather sophisticated sonar-simulation which is ironically very over-modeled for what the game offers, as you noticed yourself.
Convergence zones... because picking up contacts in 30, 60 or more nmi really matters in CW.


Does it simulate ENOUGH things? Yes.
You again neglect the opinions of other people. :hmmm:
Cold Waters is sophisticated enough for you so you feel okay calling it a Sim? Alrighty!
But what about my point of view, or the one of Thomsen, dergrunty, and the others here and on the Steam boards?


So far as the arguments about control schemes go, let me say this:
In a flight simulator, no matter how good your autopilot is, you still need to manually take off and land.
No matter what you do, you cannot avoid manually flying your aircraft.
So tell me, why does Cold Waters have to be any different?
Multiple people tried to explain this, to no avail, it seems.

Here's the difference.
In a flight simulator, you steer the plane... BECAUSE YOU ARE THE PILOT!
In Cold Waters, you are the Captain, the developers said, and no skipper steers his own sub for heavens sake. That is just so weird.

I mean, this is the number one excuse from all the "The stations aren't modeled because you are the Captain, dummy!" people, however, in the most ridiculous example (helm and planes control) this somehow is fine?

I beg to imagine the scene inside a 688 sub for a moment, where the Captain (you), pushes Helms- and Planesman off their seats to take both controls, simultaneously, shouting commands about firing counter-measures and torpedoes, while the diving officer behind you exchanges concerned looks with the Chief of the Boat.
It is too stupid!


The developers have stated their intention to add some kind of autopilot functionality into the game, so as far as I'm concerned, any complaints about the control scheme are moot the moment that is released.
Yes, that problem will then be solved, scratch one, good kill!
But let's not act as if this is the sole point people raise in the argument why CW may not deserve the title "simulator" in their opinion, it is just one of the most obvious ones - or so some people thought.
There's more, though.


I never did like the constant litany of "New Contact Acquired" that you get in other games. It's a convoy. I'm aware there are a dozen contacts. You don't need to carefully inform me about every single one of them.
Well, sucks for you, but this is how it is done in real life.
Every contact is assigned its own designation (Sierra, Victor, Master, ...) and depending on threat, priority and relevance will be assigned a tracker and individually tracked.

And closing, this is just what I expect from a simulator: Simulate the real deal as good as possible, without gamey workarounds, simplifying things too much or leaving important features out completely.
(Active-intercept contacts anyone!?)

That's all.
Enjoy Cold Waters, it sure can only get better.

[USSCheyenne]

Likes:

- sound and music,
- 3D models,
- Hunt for Red October vibe,
- dynamic campaign,
- good balance between being a sim and a fun game,

dislikes:

- bugs,
- no proper message log,
- no crew voices (i know it's coming),
- no friendly or neutral ships.

Overall loving the game, hope it will expand.

[Julhelm]

But what about my point of view, or the one of Thomsen, dergrunty, and the others here and on the Steam boards?

If your opinion was a majority opinion, the game would have tanked and Killerfish Games would have been out of business. But it didn't and we're not.

The problem with you hardcore simmer guys is that the type of sim you want really can only be made by a AAA team operating on a AAA budget and that's just not going to happen. Noone is going to want to invest in a hugely expensive project with zero chance of reaching break-even.

So the uber-ambitious dream-sim loses out even before it makes the elevator pitch.

[Nippelspanner]

If your opinion was a majority opinion, the game would have tanked and Killerfish Games would have been out of business. But it didn't and we're not.

The problem with you hardcore simmer guys is that the type of sim you want really can only be made by a AAA team operating on a AAA budget and that's just not going to happen. Noone is going to want to invest in a hugely expensive project with zero chance of reaching break-even.

So the uber-ambitious dream-sim loses out even before it makes the elevator pitch.
First of all, I supported your game despite knowing early on it will not be "my dream sim". I was happy that there at least will be a new simulation at all and spread the word among friends, hoping to support you as good as possible.
Never blamed you guys for creating the game the way you did, having no stations, etc. - but I wanted to share my honest opinion, as a fan of naval simulations, anyways. It's called feedback and constructive criticism.
Didn't even say the game is bad, ever.
I just explained that it isn't what I would expect under the tag of "simulation", adding that at least two major components are missing (from my perspective) and defended myself against your fanboys, unable to accept that not everybody loves this game.

And I beg to differ: Quite a lot of players said here and on Steam that they really want the new control scheme and crew voices, so I wouldn't be so sure about the irrelevant minority. Also, your game and your team didn't tank because people like me supported it anyways. You're welcome.

Many things you already fixed in CW where exact complaints I voiced here and on Steam, so I wonder if problematic customers like me are really that counter-productive for you/your game in the end, and their opinion is that irrelevant.

But if customers like me really are a problem to you - no worries, that can be fixed for sure!

[Julhelm]

But if customers like me really are a problem to you - no worries, that can be fixed for sure!
Does it ever occur to you that when you resort to making vague threats like this, is when you start being counterproductive. Not just for us, but for everyone who is interested in the genre?

If you really want someone to step up and make Fast Attack 2.0 you want to show that this genre is a viable market to make money in. And the best way to do that is probably not to troll the forums of the only new sim released since 2010, scaring potential customers away - because that's exactly what you do when you bash the game for being arcade, and you know that as well as I do so let's be honest here.

So bottom line, if you want to see more subsims, you'd want as many people as possible to buy our game, and act accordingly. Who knows, we might even end up making it ourselves.