LuftWolf and Amizaur's Realism Mod Poll #2: Torpedo Feedback

[LuftWolf]

We need feedback on the torpedo feedback feature from users of the mod.

Players have so far reported that it makes a mess of their auto TMA (we knew this) and it is hard to compensate, when turning off the auto TMA is not a palatable solution.

I have made the point that all torpedo seeker feedback contacts are at extremely short ranges (under 1000m in all cases that I know of, even for ADCAP, others are shorter), so when you get a bearing on a contact, you know its location relative to the torpedo instantly, meaning that it is possible to compensate either through turning off the TMA or just replotting the target in your head based on the torpedo movement and plot behavior (note: a new contact message from a torpedo near a target usually means a decoy, very helpful information to get).

[Molon Labe]

Auto TMA is a cheat that can be turned off at any time....

I think the better question would be if this makes evasion close to impossible for the target sub. We wouldn't want the only valid evasion tactic to be running out of range...

[DivingWind]

I cant sink Udaloy with single ADCAP (with under the keel explosion).Please comment this.

[LuftWolf]

There is no under keel explosion modelled in the DW engine at all. There is no mod that can fix this.

The Udaloy has a greater damage value than the ADCAP has warhead strength, for general gameplay reasons. I have raised the damage rating of some ships to provide some consistency that was lacking entirely before in the way damage values were assigned to ships.

[DivingWind]

There is no under keel explosion modelled in the DW engine at all. That what I was afraid of. :cry:

[Molon Labe]

SCX was able to do it, though.... It was one of the best improvements they made! :shifty:

[LuftWolf]

In thinking about it, I'm sure there could be some kind of doctrine level fix (something like "IF ADCAP AND target=surface THEN damage=warheadx2"). I'll have to ask Amizaur about that... am I correct in thinking that all it does practically is add damage to the ADCAP's warhead when it strikes a surface ship?

[Molon Labe]

In thinking about it, I'm sure there could be some kind of doctrine level fix (something like "IF ADCAP AND target=surface THEN damage=warheadx2"). I'll have to ask Amizaur about that... am I correct in thinking that all it does practically is add damage to the ADCAP's warhead when it strikes a surface ship?

Oh, you haven't played it, have you?

SCX torp damage modeling was awesome! If the torpedo impacted the ship in the side of the hull, it did "normal" damage, which wasn't all that much...multiple hits required to sink about anything.

However, if you set the ceiling so that the weapon passed underneath the hull, the torpedo would explode under the ship and cause about 3x the damage it would have done had it hit the side of the hull.

I can only guess about how it was done, maybe a MAD sensor was modeled for the weapon. But it was fundamentally different from the normal SC, since in the stock game a torp would NEVER explode if it passed underneath a ship. The only downside was that in SCX, you had to set a ceiling lower than 180ft to ensure that the torpedo would NOT explode underneath a neutral.

If I were the philosopher-king of DW programming, I would set up the doctrine so that if the target assigned to the weapon in fire control was designated SUB, the weapon would function as it did in stock Sub Command, requiring a direct hit to detonate. But, if the target was designated SURFACE in fire control, under-the-keel proximity detonations would be enabled and the damage done would be significantly higher (as was done in SCX).

[LuftWolf]

That sounds a little "gamey" to me... :hmm:

[LuftWolf]

I'm not sure that effect would be realistic for all torpedos.

Was it ADCAP only?

I think a doctrine level addition something along the lines of what I have only for the ADCAP would be a better way of accomplishing that, especially given the capability of DW's doctrine system.

I wouldn't want a system like the one Molon described, WAY too invasive on gameplay for my taste. :up:

[Molon Labe]

I'm not sure that effect would be realistic for all torpedos.

Was it ADCAP only?

I think a doctrine level addition something along the lines of what I have only for the ADCAP would be a better way of accomplishing that, especially given the capability of DW's doctrine system.

I wouldn't want a system like the one Molon described, WAY too invasive on gameplay for my taste. :up:

I think it worked for the UGST too.
I never bothered trying it with a 65-76, they were so big they took out just about any ship with a single hit to the side anyways.

What was gamey?

[LuftWolf]

For me, the artificial restriction on depth and how you had to handle the torpedo in general.

I am almost sure that a modification to doctrine could create this effect automatically for specified weapons with very little intrusion on gameplay.

I know nothing of SC, however, I do know that the doctrine system of DW is *amazing* as Amizaur is showing with his programming skills. :rock:

[Molon Labe]

For me, the artificial restriction on depth and how you had to handle the torpedo in general.

I am almost sure that a modification to doctrine could create this effect automatically for specified weapons with very little intrusion on gameplay.

I know nothing of SC, however, I do know that the doctrine system of DW is *amazing* as Amizaur is showing with his programming skills. :rock:

Well, I see what you mean. I guess using the ceiling to program a UTK is a bit gamey, but they made very clever use of what they had. It's also worth noting that UTK wasn't 100% effective. It was possible that the torp would pass under without detonating, and have to turn around and try again (I think this was especially true in high sea states). So, giving the player the option to go for a UTK instead of it just being programmed automatically contributed to tactical choice--granted, a minor choice.

[LuftWolf]

It could still be added as a player choice.

If you set the torpedo to 10-20 ft, it could default side hull. If you set the depth 20-40ft, it could be enabled to give a 60 percent chance of exploding under the ship and 40 percent chance of dropped target and anything under 41ft depth would be treated normally.

I believe this could be done with doctrine, but it would require a fair bit of work.

[jsteed]

Under the keel explosions are easy to create. Give the torp a MAD sensor with a range of ~50 ft. The player then sets the ceiling of the torp to 30-40 ft. When the torp reaches its target, it will explode under the ship. I have had one ADCAP destroy the Kirov on a number of occasions. It is a very simple addition to make. :rock:

cheers, jsteed

[TLAM Strike]

I've done that and it didn't work... :roll:

[compressioncut]

edit - moved to more appropriate thread

[Molon Labe]

Under the keel explosions are easy to create. Give the torp a MAD sensor with a range of ~50 ft. The player then sets the ceiling of the torp to 30-40 ft. When the torp reaches its target, it will explode under the ship. I have had one ADCAP destroy the Kirov on a number of occasions. It is a very simple addition to make. :rock:

cheers, jsteed

What about increasing the damage delivered in that case? Right now, DW torps already explode under the keel, but do the same damage as if they hit the hull...

[Deathblow]

Its a rather nifty feature. I'm all for keeping it.

I do recall getting feedback from a torp that had already had its wire cut though. I'll have to look a little closer to see if that's the case. I love the feature anyhow.

[LuftWolf]

Regretably, the game engine is coded to actually ignore the status of the wire when it comes to feedback, so UGST's fired from the external tubes will give feedback, but you cannot wireguide them. The same for torpedos that have had their wires cut.

I'm not hopeful about being able to change this unless SCS decides to fully support the feature in v1.02.

[Bellman]

Re original question - yes the torp feedback feature adds much to the sim. I would like it to be retained.

In manual TMA it provides good clues vital in MP when a final kill solution can, and often is, compromised by own avoidance.

The difficulty with auto- TMA can be overcome.

One small criticism is that I get feedback tracks upon launch - no prob to drop but it shouldnt happen.
Just an initial feedback then nothing until enabled.

I have not finalised my assessment of the interaction between the torps and CMs. No explosions observed
now which is fine but I am a little uncertain about what I am seeing.
Taking active adcaps - they appear to ignore the active cm and 'burn' through but it would appear
that they are less efficient after coming in contact with the cms 'output' for a short time.

Now I am on the wagon and hope that I am not seeing things (again) but this behaviour is rather
like an air missile seeker being confused by chaff. :hmm: If this is the case that is very, very cool. :|\

Now shatter my illusions. :roll: :o :huh: :huh:

[LuftWolf]

One small criticism is that I get feedback tracks upon launch - no prob to drop but it shouldnt happen.
Just an initial feedback then nothing until enabled.

This is most likely a detection of ownship in the tubes (the same reason you will blow yourself up if you set the enable range to 0). I'm not sure if there is anything we can do to fix this specifically, but I will definately add it to the list of things that could be polished in the next version.

I have not finalised my assessment of the interaction between the torps and CMs. No explosions observed
now which is fine but I am a little uncertain about what I am seeing.
Taking active adcaps - they appear to ignore the active cm and 'burn' through but it would appear
that they are less efficient after coming in contact with the cms 'output' for a short time.

Now I am on the wagon and hope that I am not seeing things (again) but this behaviour is rather
like an air missile seeker being confused by chaff. If this is the case that is very, very cool.


The torpedo behavior that happens after contact with the CM is not specifically part of the design intention and is a consequence of the way it was accomplished in the TorpHoming doctine. THAT having been said, torpedo guidence systems are very sophisticated and essentially no one who can talk about it knows just what happens when a torpedo goes through a CM and the input doesn't match the expectation of its programming. I would expect that if a missile acts spoofed after passing through chaff, then it is reasonable to expect a torpedo to display odd behavior after acquiring and passing through the decoy. After all, that is what decoys are designed to do.

To be honest, after watching many torpedos behave after passing through CMs in the testing of v2.0, this feature combined with the complex seeker cone moddling, the function of everything together felt VERY RIGHT, to me anyway.

I will start another poll about general torpedo behavior, I think. :hmm:

Thanks for your nice words, Bellman. I'm very happy you are enjoying our work. :D

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

I gotta tell ya, I just tried some SP with a 688I vs. Akula I. I didn't like what I saw.

On manual TMA, I fired one ADCAP at the target, range ~9 miles. The Akula immediately acclerated to flank, giving me DEMON data. :D He cleared datum east, so I nudged the torp 15 degrees that direction. the torp enabled around 8 miles downrange and immediately sent back sensor data on a contact. It did not acquire the contact; it continued snaking. This contact was clearly a CM, because it was where the sub started its evasion, and was on the wrong bearing. I preenabled my torp and let it run until it was past the CM.

Upon re-enabing, I had a new contact, and a new "conn, sonar, i have a new contact" message (which I did not get for the CM). Using Truth, I was unable to attribuite this contact to any object in the game. Also, the bearing line generated was much longer than the line for the CM.

It soon picked up another contact, which did not produce an audio message...another CM. Not long after, another nonexistant contact with audio alert was detected, and then, the torpedo acquired a target. About 10 seconds after steering towards this contact, the feedback on it appeared on screen. It was clearly moving, and was easy to tell it was the real contact. The weapon passed the 2nd CM without losing its lock and easily homed in on the Akula for the kill.

We have three problems here. One, it's buggy since apparently false contacts are being created. Two, the CMs, even though they were detected, did not lure the ADCAP away or jam its sensor. The second CM in particular was well-deployed and accompanied by manuever, but still did not lure or jam the ADCAP. Third, even had the lock been broken at some point, the feedback made it so obvious which contact was the real target that I don't believe any player could have escaped.

I'm not voting yet, though. I'll be back after some MP testing... :arrgh!:

[Amizaur]

Well, if CM effectiveness is set to some value, 50% or maybe 40% now I don't remember, this means that some of them will be uneffective and not affect torpedo at all.
The TorpHoming doctrine mod does only one thing - prevents torps from detonating on CMs. I can't imagine how it could have influence on how torpedo choses target and rejects CMs. This should work as before. Only when it locks on CM, instead of detonating should go through and soon start to search another target (sometimes immediately, sometimes there is some delay). My intention was to revert things to like they were in Sub Command.
So if you are evading, make sure that you are not in line with torpedo and CM and you will not be first thing it will see after coming through CM :).

The torpedos losing track sometimes and other things you have seen, can be connected only with fact that torpedo active seeker is much less sensitive now, but I have no idea if this have influence on target detection near CMs, if CM can "jam" the sensor or saturate it. Also I have no idea how torpedo choses it's target if there is more than one in it's field of view - if it choses strongest one, or closest one, or what...

About feedback tracks - the plague of feedback feature are the passive tracks. I tried but I can't do anything with them :-(. I just ignore them personally and look only on active tracks i.e. those with range.
The problem with passive tracks is dual. First - they appear even when torpedo is preenabled :-(. The sensor works and sends the track data. I tried to disable the sensor on the start, but it is disabled - and still sends data - just like UUV sensor sends data in preenabled state. Second problem is worse. I wanted to set passive sensor wash-out speed to value, that will prevent detecting any passive targets for 55kts active torpedo. So I set passive sensor wash-out speed to 50kts, from 50kts up the sensor is completly blocked by noise. And torpedo in fact can't home on passive tracks when at 55kts, but THIS DON'T PREVENT PASSIVE SENSOR FROM SENDING TRACKS DATA TO OWNSHIP ! :damn: :damn: :damn: The sensor completly blocked, but still send track data ! Tracks it should not detect at all. Arrrgh....
This is bug IMO. I suspect if we increased speed of UUV to 100kts, with washed-out sensor it would still detect passive contacts and show tracks on map. The only thing I can think of to avoid those damn passive tracks, would be to completly remove passive sensor form wire-guided torpedos.... but I rather don't like this idea... :damn:

About wire-guided torps impossible to evade with feedback - well I think this is what the wire and sensor data send back to ownship is for in real life - for human operator to take intervention if torpedo chosed wrong target, and guide it to the right one, for target to not stand a chance :)
Of course there are torpedos like UGST, where there is only one-way data link, only orders to torpedo but no sensor data back to ownship. So no feedback in fact. But we know that ADCAP does send it's contact data back to ownship so operator can discrimine if torpedo is homing on real moving target, or on CM ? And if he can, and can take control of the torpedo, how the target can possibly evade ? :)

[Molon Labe]

Realism argument: If the sensor data was good enough that a human could discriminate perfectly, it could probably be done automatically with no need for feedback to the human operator.

Balance argument: What's the point of playing if torpedo evasion is impossible? I don't mind making it harder on the other guy, but a player's best response to a TIW is to abadon ship, there's a problem!

I'm hoping that the evasion tactics that worked against AI fired ADCAPS will work good enough against human-guided ones to evade the torpedo on the first pass. Preventing successful reattacks with empty CM tubes is going to be fun, though. I should be able to do some MP testing this weekend; I'll let you know if anyone gets away from an ADCAP and if so what percentage.

So, you say my "bogus contacts" were actually passive tracks which are reported even when the torp is pre-enabled; like a UUV. Does this mean a torpedo with passive guidance will give active feedback when enabled?

[Bellman]

ML Upon re-enabing, I had a new contact, and a new "conn, sonar, i have a new contact" message (which I did not get for the CM). Using Truth, I was unable to attribute this contact to any object in the game. Also, the bearing line generated was much longer than the line for the CM.
Snap. :yep:

Two other obseravtions -
1. CMs effect unclear :hmm:
2. Only successful spoof observed when an enabled active adcap preferred a passive cm to my sub
when both tracked by it under 1000 m.

The latter is the sole observed effect so far after appx 15 torp runs.

Only violent manouvering has saved my skin close-in by quitting the adcaps 'cone.' And that under test conditions
with 'Truth' on - I shudder to think how MP targets will survive. :roll:

We seem rather to have gone from one extreem to the other - there was nothing too wrong with cms as they were in SC/SCX -
spoofing was possible but now :huh: :o :P

[LuftWolf]

The weapon effectiveness of the CM's was lowered from 50% to 40%.

If the general feel is that they are not effective enough now, then I will raise them back to 50%. This change is totally straightforward and should address the behavior.

I changed it to 40% based on a judgement call, it would seem that gameplay suggests it should be changed back in the next version.

Thanks for letting us know! :arrgh!:

[Bellman]

To clarify the above - I refer to spoofing as the cm causing the adcap to prosecute the cms track rather than the subs.

I have not witnessed this escept as stated.

But as I have previously said the adcap does appear to be confused by the active cm for a short time
but will press on through and recommence the search very quickly.
This is good realism but may be too taxing in-game play. :hmm:

I will continue to test - redirecting adcaps against the launching sub in SP may not be the best testbed.
So forgive these 'initial' reactions - more may become apparent soon.

[LuftWolf]

I'm pretty certain that raising the weapon effectiveness will produce more true locks on CMs for torpedos and a bit less of the confused jamming effect, which should make it a bit easier for the player to break a lock.

[Amizaur]

You ask - What's the point of playing if torpedo evasion is impossible?
I would ask - what's the point of plying if it IS possible ? :hmm: And maybe even easy ? Drop CM and you have 50% chance, drop second and you have next 50% chance ?
You do your best - detect target first, track him and compute his TMA, maneuver covertly and take perfect position to take a shot, at last you fire a perfect shot. And then the target evades it. !@#$% I would say. Even worse, he counter-fires on bearing and now you have troubles.
What's the point in detecting first then, what's the point in shooting first the ??? I always though, that in submarine warfare the way to not being sunk is not evading torpedos, but making sure that nobody will shoot at you in first place (by being not detected or by killing him first). And that it's the preferred way to go because first the modern torpedos are unlikely to be evaded, second the chances of surviving in case of hit are close to zero and then 100 people dies instantly. Risk is much more serious than for a fighter pilot being shoot at. It's like a air combat of passenger jets full of people :-/. If I detected first, tracked, shoot first and he evaded, then I would not go to war in first place but returned home
and worked in labs and test-ranges as long, as needed to get reliable torpedo that's not easy to being evaded, not more than 10% for close shot. And only then I would return to war in my sub. But it's personal opinion of course ;)

P.S. It's easy to check what caused change in CM effectiveness. All torpedos uses same doctrine and very similar sensor so effectiveness of all torps should be (unfortunately) the same. Only difference is the seeker range. So, it's easy to disable torps not detonating on CMs doctrine (just replace TorpHoming by standard one), it's easy to revert CM effectiveness back to 50%. Then the only difference between mod and standard DW would be sensor sensivity. That is easy to revert (for test) too.
Who wants such database/doctrine combinations to make tests ? But I think it's easy enaugh to make yourself for test purposes.
Interesting experiment would be also to set CM effectiveness to 100% and then see what's their real effectiveness. If the effectiveness will be really 100% or maybe lower ? :)

[Molon Labe]

I don't think torp performance in this mod is "about the same." The torps being dropped by Silex's are crappy, they lose their lock if the target sub takes a sharp turn. ASROC dropped torps are a bit better, but their locks are a but tenuous. ADCAPs, and maybe UGST's, are like mad dogs, once they get a bite they don't let go!

I think the relationship between CMs and torps is working pretty well right now. If I had a choice between a "false lockup" effect and a "jamming" effect, I'd go with jamming. It's just cooler behavior.

Going back to the philosophy of evasion... I don't want a game where torp evasion is easy. I hated the stock DW feature of torps exploding on decoys for exactly that reason. The bottom line is that I want kills and evasion to be about the skill of the player. SC and SCX struck a very good balance with this. If a torpedo locked onto you, you were in trouble, and only a very well placed CM pattern with appropriate maneuver would get you out of it. And, if the shooting player was on his game, he could resteer and thwart you anyways. Getting the first detection and first shot, and maintaining superior tactical awareness throughout the engagement, were very important (I think in SCHQ, the first shooter would win about 2/3 of the time).

Stock DW was a huge step backwards. CMs could ruin a great shot even in spite of good resteering. Preventing the detonations is as far as you need to go to set things right. Feedback from the weapon is a really cool feature too. But, if in its implementation, you absolutely guarantee a kill, then this has gone too far in the wrong direction. This is made even worse by the ridiculously accurate aTMA in DW. There is no excuse for not getting a torpedo into acquision range. There's no skill there. If the feedback makes the correct target so obvious that it can't be missed, then there is no skill in that either. Victories become meaningless.

As for first detection, skill comes into play a little bit, but so does the tactical situation (up to the mission designer), the tech level of the sub, and pure luck (TA facing the right way at the key moment). After that, its just a question of who's torpedo is has the greater relative speed compared to its target. That's it. That's what determines the outcome.

I still haven't had a chance to test this in MP. I hope it's not as bad as it seemed from SP.

[Molon Labe]

I'm not sure exactly what the 50% effectiveness parameter really means. CM effectiveness, even in stock DW, has to do with the placement of the CM. There does seem to be a random component, but it isn't dominant. In general, a well-placed CM WILL attract the torpedo, and a poorly placed one will only rarely draw a torpedo off track.
--------------------------
This is almost a separate post but I know the mods don't like 3 consecutives.

I finally got around to some testing of the feedback in MP.

I went first. I fired an ADCAP at my hapless pal, Mercedes, in her Akula 1-I. She fired 3 decoys as it approached, which I identified as decoys easily; the first decoy attracted the torp and required me to resteer it. The others didn't seem to attract the torp or interfere with the lock, and I had a nearly effortless kill.

Then we turned it around, she fired a UGST at me. It actually took 3 tries, because she kept losing me during my runs. The shorter seeker range is having a strong effect; but then again, that was manual TMA. Had it been auto, acquiring might have been a snap. So, I moved off at about a 50 degree angle to the torp, fired two decoys about 10 seconds apart. Then got on the rudder hard and crossed behind the decoys, forcing the torp to run one of them over in order to get to me while I was moving off in the other direction. Didn't work.

I think it's possible that my evasion tactic might work if I began the process slightly earlier. I'm also thinking maybe holding one decoy for the last moment might jam the torp at the terminal phase and let it go by once.

Has anyone been able to evade one of these, and if so, please share! :ping:

[Amizaur]

Hmm some thing for me to think about...

I tell you that have not decided myself yet if I want it in final mod or not. I see both pros and cons of it. Yes, it's cool, especially in SP, it shows you what targets torpedo see and you can steer it to right one. But there are some unrealistic aspects of this feature. It works at any ownship speed - even if enemy counter-shot forces you to evade, you can still see feedback data and steer your torp while making turns at flank, with ownship sensors blocked. It works outside real wire range, which should be 10nm for ADCAP - in fact it works even without a wire, fortunately steering is not possible then. It shows passive tracks at any speed, even with washed-out sensor. So hard to decide... If SCS fixed feedback sensor wash-out and made torpedo wires breakable, it would be much more realistic than is now.
I think if it's possible to make running (not stationary) CMs, at least advanced ones. I would make big running decoys launched from torpedo tubes, but we can't modify armament of playable subs :-/. Currently you would have to use SLMM to have mobile decoys :).
I also think about additional modification to torp homing doctrine, to make each second few percent chance of dropping target if the target is on the other side of the layer. Longer the torpedo stays on the other side, higher cumulative chance of it losing the target. For a moment.. or maybe forced to few seconds ? If enemy set wrong search depth , or you changed your depth while evading, you would have slightly better chances. But this would require much testing and fine tunning of right values.

BTW I have to test different torpedos with CMs set to 100%. I don't really believe that different torpedos are smarter or dumber, I don't see in database any values that could be responsible for that. All torpedos had similar parameters and all shared same sensor in standard DW...
I'll make some tests of ADCAP vs E45-75A with same sensor and we'll see.

[Bellman]

The topic of CMs cause a furore a few weeks back.

I cannot comment fully on CM torp interaction, (yet) but a feature subtends which I think detracts from gameplay.

Under SCX both active and passive CMs (SW ) were ejected some 50 yards from the sub and then for example
with a sub speed of 30 knts they would continue on the subs course for the same before making a 135 or 180 deg.
course change. Total distance travelled from launch 30 yds appx.(30 kts - launch speed related)

Now the CMs just clear the sub and stop !! This would be appropriate only in circumstances where the torp explodes
on them and IMO was introduced by SAS as a dumbing down for the general player.

SCX CM behaviour is surely preferable given that the torp takes a 'heading off' course so the skill for
the diver is to interpose the 'spoofing' cm.

The new mod adcaps are beatable mostly only by violent manouvre.

[Bellman]

We know little of how 'real' cms work but IMO we look to flight sims for the clues.

Surely an active cm is like a flare and would be projected/launched with the intention of attracting the 'homer'
On the other hand a passive cm is like chaff and its purpose is to confuse/blind the torps seeker with 'noise'

For brevity I grossly oversimplify but my point is if that if the DW software doesnt permit (?) variable launch
performance characteristics for cms then the former (SCX) projection method is preferable ? :hmm:

[Molon Labe]

I always thought the way SC shot CMs way out of the tubes was kinda hokey. Just ejecting it from the tube seems more realistic t me.

[Bellman]

Under SCX they ejected only if the sub was at stop they went 50 yds to clear and stopped - if the sub was
moving they carried the momentum as in my example of 30 knts they went 300 yds.
Thats kinda realistic ? :yep:

Even under DW they do more than just eject - measure it ! ;)

[stormrider_sp]

I liked the idea of the perfect first shop. It should be extremly difficult/impossible to spoof. I liked the less effective CMs. Keep it the way they are now.

[Molon Labe]

Well, I've played a few more games. I haven't seen a torpedo that was providing feedback be evaded yet. I'm not prepared to say it's impossible, but it's close enough.

I found the argument about the 10nm wire length and the failure of the wire to break during manuevering or high speed very persuasive as well. My vote is cast... :down:

[Bellman]

I must agree that my initial favourable response has faded with further tests over the weekend.

The 'feedback' coupled with reduced cm effectiveness has steeply tipped the advantage to the torpedo.
Add to that the 'wire' control bug/fault and torp avoidance has become extremely difficult.

The effectiveness of CMs is the lynch pin. But given that this is a simple (?) arithmetic factor whereas 'feedback'
is a constant then I join ML in a :down:

[LuftWolf]

We have dissabled torpedo feedback for all torpedos based on your feedback. :know: :up:

Thank you very much for you input on this feature. ;)

For those of you who really liked the torpedo feedback, I can post a method to reinstate it for the proper torpedos, however, we feel that the feedback feature will too unbalance the multiplayer game and making hunting AI subs in single player like shooting guided arrows at deer, just unfair. :arrgh!:

Cheers,
David

[Amizaur]

so case closed... ;)

maybe we will return to it someday if something change with game feedback/wire modelling.