Mission: Kara sea search Feed back.

[Kapitan]

Just finnished playing this mission in real time, according to the Mission de brief it took 7 hours 36 minuets and 47 seconds (it felt like a week!).

It was a good mission i enjoyed playing it and will more than likely play it again, the long stroke of bordem paid off after 6 hours when i detected a poss sub on narrowband with my Skat 3 towed array, after doing all the monovers to possitivly classify this submarine it came to the 688i.

I did not enguage immediatly infact i picked this guy up doing only 5 knots bearing 122 from me course 355 range 11 miles.
Now thats well with in my 65cm torpedo's.

So what did i do?

I sat there and waited till he got closer he came within 6 miles of me then i fired and i know i caught him litteraly with his pants down.

I activated the torpedo at 5 miles from me and almost immediatly had lockhow ever he evaded my torpedo and two others, but my fourth one got luck hitting him in the arse and sinking him.

The guy fired back a MK-48-ADCAP so instead of running away from the torpedo i ran towards it at flank speed, and just like hunt for red october it went straight past me going active only two miles behind.

I have to admit i got scared at that point i dropped countermeasures and made hard 90 degree turn i even had to look into my print out for torpedo aquisition ranges and thankfully i was now outside the MK-48-ADCAP's range heading now due north back to TK208.

Once the torpedo stopped pinging i ended the game the TK208 Dmitri Donskoy had been effectivly Escorted.

So how did i do it? what tactics did i use? what speeds ?

If you ever seen clive custler look for ship wrecks you will see he does whats called a box search, ie he splits a certain area up in goes up and down and then across side to side, i used this methord.

When turning i used sprint and drift tactic where i would speed up to 25 knots then set all stop and glide till i got to four knots this was mainly to straighten out the towed array.

When doing "the line" i would only keep to 5 knots and i kept to 55 meters (no layers under ice so no need to go deep).

Anyway as i said after six hours or there abouts i found him, he was outside the SSBN op area south about 45 miles from the boomer approximatly.
I knew his torpedos could not get the boomer so i decided to do what i do best, sit and wait and i didnt wait that long 20 minuets at most and then i fired sinking him.

Short tactic list of tactics used:

Box searching
Sprint and drift
"Stay silent stay shallow"



How can this mission be improved?

The SSBN op area could be extended.
More biologicals.
Shallower waters.
More of a mission objective ie make sure the entire op area is clear of all threats.

More submarines both friendly and un friendly.
Random failures of eqipment could be good as well .

How would i rate this Mission?

Over view:
This mission is perfect for a person like me, i am "off the wall" kind of skipper i dont play by the books or rules i do what i have to do to get the job done regardless wether i go in harms way.
To play this mission you need a lot of patience as it takes hours, it took me almost 8 hours on this mission alone and that was in real time!

Skill:
Well you dont need that much as long as you know the rules of the road you will do fine, if you dont know how to command submarines under ice dont get this mission its not like commanding a submarine in the blue water it is a whole new kettle of fish.

Detail of the mission:
Fairly good could be improved upon with the above mentioned area's but it was a nice relaxing easy mission unlike some where its just sheer mayhem.

Score out of 100:

I have to give this mission 88 out of 100 Certain factors come in that make the mission not that good but it is still an excellent mission i do look forward to playing it again, and maybe even multiplayer!

[SeaQueen]

The SSBN op area could be extended.


I'm not sure that's a good idea. If you make the SSBN op area larger, then the scenario will take more and more time, statistically. Do you really want to play a scenario where you sit there a month and find nothing? That gets lame quickly. It's realistic, but it's lame.

I figured 50x50 NM was more than sufficiently challenging for most people. I think in my original statement about the scenario taking a week to play, I underestimated the detection range by a great deal. It seems like so far 8-12 hours is about what it takes.


More biologicals.


The biologicals are random. Sometimes you see more, sometimes you see less. I thought about putting more shrimp in. Do you know of anyplace that specifically details the marine life up there? Actual numbers are hard to come by.



Shallower waters.


I'm sort of limited by what's on the bathymetric chart there. Is there a better location with the Kara Sea that you would pick? Why?


More of a mission objective ie make sure the entire op area is clear of all threats.


I thought about that, but I wasn't sure how to do it in a way that felt good to me. In real life, you can never say that an area is clear of all threat submarines, you can only make probabilistic statements but the way DW is set up now, you can't really do something like, "clear the area to 90% confidence that there are no threats in it," because you can't do math in the doctrine language.

I think it'd be neat if you could do some kind of "probability of clearence threshold" trigger. I think if I could do that, though, I think it'd be much more challenging (and realistic) for the Soviet side. In that case, what I'd do is make the inclusion of the threat submarine random, so you don't know if there's actually a threat there or not. :-) You just have to get to 90% confidence the area is clear as fast you can. I'd have to make a pair of scenarios, actually. The same situation played from opposite sides. Huuuuum... this has me thinking.


More submarines both friendly and un friendly.


I was cautious about this, because I explicitly DIDN'T want to have to deal with issues like coordination of ASW assets. Every time I try to design a complicated scenario in DW with lots of things going on at once, I end up in over my head and never finish it.

Besides, I think DW is at it's best when it's a very small number of assets. Larger scale stuff is best played in Harpoon. This boils things down to the essentials, I think. It gives one a good feel for what an ASW scenario is all about.


Random failures of eqipment could be good as well .


I'll keep that in mind. In general, I like to assume that things are sufficiently well maintained that this isn't too much of a problem, but I don't know what you people do with your ships over there.


To play this mission you need a lot of patience as it takes hours, it took me almost 8 hours on this mission alone and that was in real time!

Yeah... I'm scared a lot of people won't like it for that reason.

I have to give this mission 88 out of 100 Certain factors come in that make the mission not that good but it is still an excellent mission i do look forward to playing it again, and maybe even multiplayer!

I actually originally intended it to be multiplayer, but realistically most kids aren't going to sit there for hours at a time twiddling with the narrow band sonar, trying to find a 50Hz tonal. It takes a special kind of wacko to get into that.

[Kapitan]

Thankyou for your dissitation, i shall reply now with this.



Kapitain wrote:

The SSBN op area could be extended.


I'm not sure that's a good idea. If you make the SSBN op area larger, then the scenario will take more and more time, statistically. Do you really want to play a scenario where you sit there a month and find nothing? That gets lame quickly. It's realistic, but it's lame.

I figured 50x50 NM was more than sufficiently challenging for most people. I think in my original statement about the scenario taking a week to play, I underestimated the detection range by a great deal. It seems like so far 8-12 hours is about what it takes.

For a person like me id prefer it extended but this is good for a normal run of the mill sort of guy.



I'm sort of limited by what's on the bathymetric chart there. Is there a better location with the Kara Sea that you would pick? Why?

About 150 miles due east of the the middle of Novaya Zemlya is a good place to hide a boomer its shallow, thick ice, and hard to find.



More submarines both friendly and un friendly

The to make it just that little harder why dont you put in nutrel submarines of other countrys say France it would prove difficault for both sides then to find and fire at a target.

Yeah... I'm scared a lot of people won't like it for that reason.

It depends on what type of person its made for i like long missions so i enjoyed this some others like short missions, you need to cater for both sides and this mission was done fine.

[SeaQueen]

The to make it just that little harder why dont you put in nutrel submarines of other countrys say France it would prove difficault for both sides then to find and fire at a target.


The context of the scenario was the big NATO/Warsaw Pact grudge match of the 80s. There are few if any submarine-wielding, neutral nations.

You're welcome to modify it any way you'd like, but I was shooting for a certain amount of realism. I'm also making the assumption that NATO planners in the scenario were sufficiently together that deconfliction between friendly SSNs was not a problem. I don't think that's unreasonable, either.

[Kapitan]

AAAAhhhhh now i know the setting, then the mission is perfectly fine, although i personaly wouldnt have opted to send a boomer near Novaya Zemlya.

Close but not as close as that as the island itself creates great navigational problems.

However for realism in this mission its got to be at lesat 7 /10

[XabbaRus]

Using doctrine and stuff you could do a 90% clear type thing.

It would be quite clumsy but doable.

[SeaQueen]

Using doctrine and stuff you could do a 90% clear type thing.

It would be quite clumsy but doable.

How so?

[XabbaRus]

It depends on how many enemy subs you want to put in the scenario.

For example if you wanted a 75% clearance
You'd need 4 enemy subs. Then using doctrine language set up that if any 3 out of the 4 are destroyed then the mission would be complete.

I think it is possible..

[Kapitan]

Sounds a good idea :hmm:

[Ramius]

Mission worked fine for me.

Just went sneaking about rather than killing things :yep:

http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/8236/1008yt.jpg

Regarding the idea of putting "neutral" units up there = :nope: :nope: :nope:

[Kapitan]

I knew american skippers started to kiss Russian ar$e but that is taking the pi$$

[SeaQueen]

It depends on how many enemy subs you want to put in the scenario.

For example if you wanted a 75% clearance
You'd need 4 enemy subs. Then using doctrine language set up that if any 3 out of the 4 are destroyed then the mission would be complete.

I think it is possible..

It might be possible, but I think you're misunderstanding the problem. Suppose it wasn't known how many subs were in the box, or if any were in the box at all. You need to search the box and such that if there are any submarines in there, you stand a 0.9 probability of finding all of them.

That changes the problem because now, just because you've killed a submarine, doesn't mean that you're necessarily any closer to reaching your objective. It might change HOW you search, but that's not even clear, necessarily. It also makes negative information more ambiguous. "I searched this area for a hour, and I found nothing, is there really nothing there?"

It's that lack of information that would be neat to build into a scenario. The way I'd like to do it, you don't necessarily have to kill a single submarine to win. You just have to sanitize an area to make sure those submarines that you do know about aren't there, and the ones you don't know about are most likely not there. You can prosecute the submarines as a way to complete the objective or not.

It's kind of a subtle point, but I'm not sure how to do that in DW. The objective I just layed out, though, would let you experiment with TACTICS, which is what makes these kinds of computerized wargames fun. That's where they can be kind of deep, actually.

[XabbaRus]

You'd need to make several groups with several subs in each group then make those groups appear randomly.

So you make 2 groups, one with 3 subs in and the other with 4 subs.

In each of these groups when they appear anywhere between 1 or 4 subs can appear. (Or 1 and 3 depending on the group)

Then you need another group containing these groups, so either 1 group or 2 groups appear.

How you work the goals though is something else...

[Bill Nichols]

It depends on how many enemy subs you want to put in the scenario.

For example if you wanted a 75% clearance
You'd need 4 enemy subs. Then using doctrine language set up that if any 3 out of the 4 are destroyed then the mission would be complete.

I think it is possible..

It might be possible, but I think you're misunderstanding the problem. Suppose it wasn't known how many subs were in the box, or if any were in the box at all. You need to search the box and such that if there are any submarines in there, you stand a 0.9 probability of finding all of them.

That changes the problem because now, just because you've killed a submarine, doesn't mean that you're necessarily any closer to reaching your objective. It might change HOW you search, but that's not even clear, necessarily. It also makes negative information more ambiguous. "I searched this area for a hour, and I found nothing, is there really nothing there?"

It's that lack of information that would be neat to build into a scenario. The way I'd like to do it, you don't necessarily have to kill a single submarine to win. You just have to sanitize an area to make sure those submarines that you do know about aren't there, and the ones you don't know about are most likely not there. You can prosecute the submarines as a way to complete the objective or not.

It's kind of a subtle point, but I'm not sure how to do that in DW. The objective I just layed out, though, would let you experiment with TACTICS, which is what makes these kinds of computerized wargames fun. That's where they can be kind of deep, actually.


How about this for an idea:

Say you want the mission goal to be, "Sanitize an area 50 x 50 nm with 90% confidence"

Let's assume the mean detection range at tactical search speed to be 5 nmi. Create 25 destination (event) triggers, each with 5nm radius (10 nmi diameter) such that the 50 x 50 nmi search area is covered. You can specify a max speed to force the player to use correct search tactics.

Next, create an Aggregate (Goal) Trigger that requires at least 22 of the above destination triggers to fire (90% of 25). Call this trigger, "Comple ASW Search" or something similar.

That's it. :know:

[Bellman]

Scenario now completed in SW with kills of the Typhoon Dimitriydonskoy 208 and Akula 1 -Improved,
Leopard 328. Time elapsed 12 hrs 44 mins.

Strange metallic sound emitter source tracked down and reported in HIFAS DW.

Point to note - although mission completed 100% -Score shown as 50% 100/200 Resolution Incomplete,due to
American SSN incomplete goal.

I enjoyed playing this mission a lot, as my cautionary first mission, induced a proper leve of tension the
second time around. I shall play it again. :|\

[SeaQueen]

You can specify a max speed to force the player to use correct search tactics.

I think that's a lot more along the lines of what I'm thinking of, but I'd prefer not to FORCE the player to do anything. If the player wants to hang themselves, they should be able to do it. I wish there was a way to do things like reference the maximum sensor range against a target, or what not, and do the math so that you could actually calculate the sensor area covered, and have it spend on all the variables involved.

[SeaQueen]

Point to note - although mission completed 100% -Score shown as 50% 100/200 Resolution Incomplete,due to
American SSN incomplete goal.


I guess I need to fix that. Remember kiddies, this is a draft. Please don't crucify me. :-)

You should try playing it in the 688I. I'm more interested in results in that.

[Bellman]

SQ:Remember kiddies, this is a draft. :roll: I wish !! :o :arrgh!: ;)

You may have to reappraise my previous. I was running LwAmi Preview on 1,03 and not stock,
unintentionaly I may add. I have now completed a new install with Stock 1.03 on a separate
HD and will give the 688 an outing.

PS. No Sound Mod added this time and so far no ghostly twanger. Maybe the Mod got corrupted at my end :hmm:

[SeaQueen]

You may have to reappraise my previous. I was running LwAmi Preview on 1,03 and not stock,
unintentionaly I may add. I have now completed a new install with Stock 1.03 on a separate
HD and will give the 688 an outing.

I suspected as much. This is one case where I felt like what I was seeing in the stock DW was more realistic than what I was hearing about in LWAmi. *shrug*

[Bill Nichols]

You can specify a max speed to force the player to use correct search tactics.

I think that's a lot more along the lines of what I'm thinking of, but I'd prefer not to FORCE the player to do anything. If the player wants to hang themselves, they should be able to do it. I wish there was a way to do things like reference the maximum sensor range against a target, or what not, and do the math so that you could actually calculate the sensor area covered, and have it spend on all the variables involved.

Nothing in what I said prevents the player from hanging themselves. What I described rewards the player for using 'correct' tactics, he can still do something stupid if that's his pleasure :arrgh!:

[Kapitan]

Do something stupid oh yeah ive made plenty of mistakes and so has many others ive played with including my adversary going to the toilette before wepons free returning only to find his frigate had been pummeled by my 76cm gun :lol:

[Bellman]

SQ - Third time playing, a bigger challenge with 688 in stock.

The Ak was harder to find but I got a very, very faint tonal, shallow which the Replay showed was at about 20 nm.
Good fight before she shrimped and I explored around with my remaining 48 which put the Typhoon up to
20 knots where she gave away the path to her final resting place. A more edgy contest, 688 v Ak, which will be
nice to reprise in MP. Pleased to report no guitar playing ;)

[SeaQueen]

Nothing in what I said prevents the player from hanging themselves. What I described rewards the player for using 'correct' tactics, he can still do something stupid if that's his pleasure :arrgh!:

Wouldn't it take the player's decision about what the best compromise between stealth and search rate out of the players hands, though?

In order to get sensor coverage for particular piece of ocean to count, you'd have to go no greater than the prescribed speed.
Imagine you're a smart player who has never seen a search manual or operations analysis textbook, and doesn't know what the optimum decision he might make is, but was clued in enough to realize the compromises involved in search, and wants to experiment.

I decided I was willing to go faster and accept a narrower search width because I could make the area searched up with increased speed, and I didn't think the bad guy was good enough to capitalize on my decreased stealth. If my increased speed was greater than what one decided was smart, then the mission wouldn't be completed even if, statistically speeking, he had achieved the required probability of clearence. It might not necessarily be the smartest thing in the world for him to have done, but it's possible to be successful doing it anyway.

It just seems kind of pedantic to design a mission that can only be completed using a certain tactic. I'd much rather design a mission where it might be possible to do any number of things and still be successful, even if they aren't necessarily optimal. It makes it more fun.

[Bellman]

I would like to make some observations from playing this scenario.

The Kara Seas scenario tasks the 688 player to locate and eliminate a Russian SSBN, in the Kara Sea Boomer bastion -
Four Stars. Time frame 4/88 WW3. The Russians are expected to surge their SSBNs anti USA CVBGs.
The OA is appx 4000 sq, nm and 90% ice covered with an abundance of icebergs. Note also ice coverage varies from
about 75% in the West to 92% in the East Kara receives large amounts of freshwater so salinity is variable.
Waters have a mean depth of 110 m. ISP varies and Layers from 350-650 ft. were observed.

Planning the mission pre-launch the crucial considerations are :
1. What is the likely egress route for a SSBN ?
2. What SSN escort/s can be anticipated ?
3. What proceedures will maximise success ?

ROUTE:
It is unlikely that either the SSBN would exit, or the 688 enter, by the very shallow Southern Kara Strait.
Therefore one would expect the 688 would be at the Northernmost sector of Kara, or possibly in
the Barents Sea and the SSBN could be expected to be proceeding in a cumulatively Northern direction
to the Barents Sea. In the scenario the 688 starts at the South and the SSBN (Mus'nt spoil things) patrols rather
than routes. OK, this option was taken probably for replaybility, and that is fine if the brief were to state -
' You have penetrated the SSBN bastion - SSBNs known to be taking part in a localised operation.'
But for realism given the brief I would expect the designer to make a stab at Northerly routes for the Reds.

ESCORT/S:
In RL we should see Akula/s escorting, screening, snowploughing, shadowing. So pre-game what can be anticipated.
The Aks standoff capacity is iced,so the 688 v Ak duel/s is promising. Given a long range tonal, which platform
is it and how close is the escorter/escortee. ?

PROCEEDURES.
Not beeing party to the pros 'search manuals' or operational analysis proceedures, the task is like pursuing
burglars over a golf course at night in pitch black conditions with a weakly powered torch. How can you maximise your
chances of collaring one or more ? The one carrying the loot (SSBN) is vital but where, and how close, are his friends ?
If you attack one be sure his friends are not close enough to come to his aid.

The OA is 3900 sq. nm. so the search technique must be trade-off between speed (with relative blindness)
and stealthy listening. Generaly we can dive to suitable depths and progress at speed, slow and listen, come over
the layer (if present or shallow) and carry out a comprehensive search. Dive, speed up etc. The critical choices
are how much to zig zag and seeing the speed runs as links in a critical path analysis chart, how long should
they be for most effective cover, both at intermediate and node points ? Following the CPA comparison, the next
question is given TA sensor coverage representing the nodes(action balloon) how can they be positioned on Nav,
again for max. sensor search capability ? Again can we rely on SA and Hull/Conf. to fill in the inter-node voids ?
Finaly in-game, only can the 'links' be time-warp assisted, without a fatal outcome. (as in my first outing !)
With carefull timing and ranging it works.

Now, in my fourth outing, I am learning some lessons, but I dont want to spoil with too much AAR.

Thinking of the character of this scenario, I must confess to a preference for this type of more open-ended
situation. Perhaps its my Harpoon experience but I prefer general objectives and the strategic
or tactical decisions to be left to me, the player.

[SeaQueen]

PROCEEDURES.
Not beeing party to the pros 'search manuals' or operational analysis proceedures, the task is like pursuing
burglars over a golf course at night in pitch black conditions with a weakly powered torch. How can you maximise your
chances of collaring one or more ?

If you're not afraid of some heavy duty math, you can write your own search manual.

Bare in mind, people have been interested in the mathematics of search since WWII. It's been used for more than just finding submarines. It's had implications for everything from crime scene investigation and finding missing children, to finding burried treasure, to search and rescue for the coastguard.

There's a book called, Search and Screening by Koopman (who basically invented search theory, and found it's application used to devastating effect in the Bay of Biscay during WWII) and another book called, Naval Operations Analysis by Wagner and friends, which basically covers a lot of the same stuff, but simplified. It also has some new stuff in it too. It won't tell you what the real people do, but it will teach you how to think in terms of how to make the most efficient use of your assets. Then you can experiment on your own, and see what works best for you. The problem solving is what wargaming is all about. All of these debates over realism are really academic. Who cares? I honestly don't think a lot of it really matters. So long as everything is correct in principle you'll have a reasonably realistic and fun game that you can learn a lot from.

Wargaming is all about the tactics. Sometimes I worry people obsess too much with the gizmos.

Thinking of the character of this scenario, I must confess to a preference for this type of more open-ended
situation. Perhaps its my Harpoon experience but I prefer general objectives and the strategic or tactical decisions to be left to me, the player.

Yeah... missions that are too scripted can be boring to me too. I don't like to feel like I'm being lead by the nose to a pre-determined outcome. The whole point of a wargame is to put YOU in the drivers seat. Sink or swim, your decisions and good luck are what the outcome depends upon. It doesn't need to be complex. Even doing simple things can require a great deal of thought to do really well.

[Bellman]

:D Agree re Tactics v Gizmos.

Holding up the white flag at this end - the broadside of book tips threatens to sink me.
Baulked at 100 dollars for Stefanick - maybe I can get an out-of-town sub. to your library. ;)

'' I don't like to feel like I'm being lead by the nose to a pre-determined outcome.'' My sentiments entirely -
seems more a display of the designers 'engineering' ability. But for the player it's what I call 'running on rails'

The sub Captain is the last of the breed of potential bucaneers, psychologicaly inclined to resist
the increasing shackles of group co-ordination. As a diver I prefer the free-ranging lone-wolf role.

PS. I suppose the department dont provide books on a 'Lend-lease' basis do they ? :lol:

[SeaQueen]

Holding up the white flag at this end - the broadside of book tips threatens to sink me.
Baulked at 100 dollars for Stefanick - maybe I can get an out-of-town sub. to your library. ;)

Heh, keep an eye out for it in used bookstores or online. I'm sure you'll be able to find a copy at a reasonable price eventually. The world won't end if you don't read it. I just toss these things out there because everyone seems to want to know how real warship captains and other military planners think. Believe it or not, most of that sort of stuff is unclassified and available to the public. The highly specific technical details are usually where one can get in trouble.

Stefanick has been out of print for a while now. The other two are also hard to find, but the Military Operations Research Society (MORS) keeps Koopman in print, and Wagner is a text book at the Naval Academy. That's on Amazon.com both are not friendly reading if you don't have a pretty good background in mathematics. It won't necessarily be what the captain of a warship is thinking, but the results of books like that are the starting point for experimentation and the development of actual tactics. They won't tell you what anyone actually does, but they will allow you to make some educated guesses sometimes.


The sub Captain is the last of the breed of potential bucaneers, psychologicaly inclined to resist
the increasing shackles of group co-ordination. As a diver I prefer the free-ranging lone-wolf role.


That's actually not very true. Submarines, like any other warship, these days, act in coordination with other assets. They are a lot less independent than they're frequently romanticized as. HOW they coordinate them with other assets has some unique challenges, but over all, submarines are as much a part of the team as much as FFGs, DDGs, CGs, CVNs, LHDs, etc...

[TLAM Strike]

The sub Captain is the last of the breed of potential bucaneers, psychologicaly inclined to resist
the increasing shackles of group co-ordination. What about the USS Barb's Formosa Strait patrol? Or USS Tang at Wake Is.? Or Tyrian P-3 01 and SSN-754 at the Battle of Kingston. :ping:

[Bellman]

:D I did say ''potential bucaneers'' but no more so than your average quarter back. ;)

Cant be bothered to reload so hope the other barrel will do for TLAM - ''psychologicaly inclined to resist !!''
'' As a diver I prefer the free-ranging lone-wolf role. ''

From a little intense Harpooning guys I am well aware of the strategic coordination of modern
submarine warfare. One must contrast this with personal preferences within gameplay. ;)

[Kapitan]

I dont mind what role i do a team role is better because we can communicate possible targets and litteraly confuse the enamy.

However i do like doing a lone wolf role, it suites me either way.

[Bellman]

SQ - new version downladed from Bills, thank you.

Could you please clarify:

1. What changes have been made ?
2. What is, and what purpose has, the database file 'thumbs.db' ?

[TLAM Strike]

2. What is, and what purpose has, the database file 'thumbs.db' ? I've seen that before. I think the file got zipped funny. Just ignore it. ;)

[Bill Nichols]

2. What is, and what purpose has, the database file 'thumbs.db' ? I've seen that before. I think the file got zipped funny. Just ignore it. ;)

In Windows XP, if you view a folder using "thumbnails" (shows thumbnails of graphics files in the folder), then it creates the file 'thumbs.db'.

[Bellman]

OK thanks - but I downloaded it again and simply opened the zip with WinZip and there she is without any action
on my part. I never use 'thumbnails - so its seems it's coming packaged that way. :hmm:

[SeaQueen]

SQ - new version downladed from Bills, thank you.

Could you please clarify:

1. What changes have been made ?


I fixed the goal so that you could get 100% of the points.

I changed the distribution governing the American SSN's starting position. It shouldn't effect anything, but it will give you a chance to see a little more of the arctic.

I made the Soviet SSN exclusively an AI because it seems like not many people were willing to play this as a MP scenario. It really is best played in more than one sitting. The last time I played it, it took just under 20 hours from the starting time to killing the SSBN. The escort was still there. It's also harder from the American perspective, I think.

I changed it so that the SSBN's escort would be an early model AKULA some fraction of the time, and a VICTOR III some other fraction of the time. The early AKULAs were basically just SIERRAs but made of steel instead of titanium, so I figured it'd make it a little more "period." The DW database really isn't well suited to Cold War scenarios, unfortunately, but we do what we can.

I changed the Soviet subs' starting depths.

I changed the American SSN's starting depth.

I expanded a the scenario notes a little bit.

I changed the scenario description slightly.

I also added some currents reflecting some oceanographic data I found.

And I password protected it, so that munchkins can't play with an SSN 21 in 1988. :-)


2. What is, and what purpose has, the database file 'thumbs.db' ?

None, it's a relic of my operating system.

[Bellman]

SQ - Your comments are greatly appreciated, thank you. :|\

Already at sea in a 688 with the previous version and it
certainly is more taxing even than the LWAMId SW.

Kara Mk 1.01 will christen my new PC. :rock:

See you in a week or so.

:yep: ;)

[SeaQueen]

SQ - Your comments are greatly appreciated, thank you. :|\


You're welcome. I'm glad you guys enjoy the scenario. Personally, I think it's fairly challenging, without being overly complicated. Once you manage to find the SSBN, there should be lots of fire-counterfire-evade sorts of exchanges as you try to develop a solution on the SSBN. The escorts seem to be quite aggressive. I think it's actually harder to get at the escorts than the boomer itself, in some ways. :-)

[LuftWolf]

The DW database really isn't well suited to Cold War scenarios, unfortunately, but we do what we can.

I think we can fix that. :know:

The 688(i) and Akula Imp I would have to be used to play the nuclear submarine sides, but the MH60, P-3, Kilo Standard, and especially the FFG should work nicely as Cold War playables without too much stretching.

[SeaQueen]

I think we can fix that. :know:

The 688(i) and Akula Imp I would have to be used to play the nuclear submarine sides, but the MH60, P-3, Kilo Standard, and especially the FFG should work nicely as Cold War playables without too much stretching.

I have no problem with the playables. It's the lack of variety in AI platforms that bothers me. HEN class subs were used all through the Cold War. Where is the o-so-scary Alfa? Earlier VICTOR or DELTA versions? More varieties of surface platforms? Sturgeons? Thresher/Permits? American SUBROCs?

My sense of things, looking at the available non-playables, is that they were trying to be very post-Cold War. I actually like that, but it's very limiting if you're making historical scenarios.

Honestly, though, the only simulator whose database I really like is Harpoons. *shrug* The only reason it can be as huge as it is, is that fancy graphics are not a part of that sim at all.

[LuftWolf]

Well, those AI platforms are hopefully on the way.

If there is a model out there for it that can be imported into DW, all we need is for someone to let us add it to the new platforms pack for stock DW and the new version of LWAMI that are in the works. :arrgh!:

[Bellman]

SQ: Diving 1.01. Intrigued by the slightly different shaded area at the centre N of OA. (Not the usual receptivity
shading) My investigations inconclusive - there is no reduction in ice thickness or a large iceberg there.
Crashed the ice and did a visual - nothing. Perhaps its just a coffee stain. :D

The marked changes in SSP East to West are interesting presumably due to the changes in salinity.

Would be nice to see some Harpoon type elements integrated into a future DW. The ability to design
groups with 'formation' stationing, orientation and tasking, together with creating 'missions'.
Even with a limited number of playaybles the OHP could be assigned realistiic group support functions.
Also some of the in-game mapping aids such as 'zoning' would enhance play.

Perhaps, if Jamie's at the party, I will go into my familiar song entitled
''Put on your old brown shoes.........Dust off ole Fleet Command '' ;)

[SeaQueen]

The marked changes in SSP East to West are interesting presumably due to the changes in salinity.


I don't think DW actually goes into that much detail. Who knows, though? It might have something to do with the currents I put in, or it might just be luck. It's a shame, really that they aren't more opened about what's actually IN the sonar model.


Would be nice to see some Harpoon type elements integrated into a future DW. The ability to design groups with 'formation' stationing, orientation and tasking, together with creating 'missions'. Even with a limited number of playaybles the OHP could be assigned realistiic group support functions.
Also some of the in-game mapping aids such as 'zoning' would enhance play.

To a certain extent you can.

*shrug*

I like Harpoon. I like DW. DW captures a different aspect of things of Harpoon. Sometimes I wish DW was more like Harpoon but usually when I do that it's because the scenario has become bloated and is probably best played in Harpoon, not DW. :-)

[XabbaRus]

Ah but there is a way to get round the password protection ;)

I have a few cold war subs in various stages. There are some good ones in SCX but they can't be used :(

Lets see what I can do.

[goldorak]

Its a little off topic but I have a question regarding the database.
Is it possibile for modding puroposes to add new entries to the database (for instance to include non playable units, or new countries such as italty etc...) ?
Or is the database lockdown in terms of number of entries ?

[Fandango]

Goldorak,

I suggest you to post an independent thread on the topic in the general forum.... :ping:

[SeaQueen]

Ah but there is a way to get round the password protection ;)

You are a TRUE munchkin.



I have a few cold war subs in various stages. There are some good ones in SCX but they can't be used :(

Lets see what I can do.

BTW, as an aside, while I was at work, I saw your post on a 3d graphics site with a Yankee SSBN shooting a missile. We're trying to give our model cool 3d graphics (gotta keep up with the competition and all that). I thought it was cool because I was thinking, "Ah... small world..."

[Bellman]

Enjoyed my tour in Kara but time for some shore leave as my 'appendages' have turned purple !

The beefed up Typhoon support and northern starting positions for the 688 have added interest,

Why given the tactic assignments I seem to discover the Typhoon first between me and its support,
escapes me. Given the odds this should'nt happen. But I like to infiltrate the defenders first and then,
should a scrap be unavoidable, the Typhoons evasion adds fuirther challenge. Perhaps one answer,
given the N & S. 688 starters is to Group, but given a certain predictability I would prefer a trigger/script
which created the Reds starting positions directly related to the 688s starting position boxes/randomisations.

If ice coverage was'nt so uniform then the channels/pools would provide some scope fot those pesky
fishing boats. Judiciously placed to avoid frustrating red herring excursions.

I hope this mission will provoke ideas for some littoral water scenarios. In the meantime ice is 'cool' !

[SeaQueen]

Why given the tactic assignments I seem to discover the Typhoon first between me and its support, escapes me.


The Typhoon can fight back. I've gotten shot by it a couple of times. When I first put the scenario togther, I just made something simple that I would enjoy, but figured nobody else would because of the length of time necessary to complete it. I'm shocked that it's been as popular as it is.


Perhaps one answer, given the N & S. 688 starters is to Group, but given a certain predictability I would prefer a trigger/script
which created the Reds starting positions directly related to the 688s starting position boxes/randomisations.



That would imply the red force had some knowledge of which direction you were coming from. That's probably realistic given the geography, but I didn't want to make, say, a barrier search followed by an area clearence problem. I wanted to make a simple scenario where I could play with different search tactics and shoot some torpedoes once I found the bad guys.


If ice coverage was'nt so uniform then the channels/pools would
provide some scope fot those pesky fishing boats.


I'm putting together a more complicated Strategic ASW scenario. This one is in the Barents Sea, where ice coverage is not so heavy. I'm not sure how I'm going to handle neutral traffic at this point. I'm just trying to get sonobuoy fields to work right. It's fun, though, because there's a SOSUS datum and an MPA to hand off the contact to your submarine.

Besides, in the Kara Sea Scenario, you really don't want too many red herrings. You could be hunting for the SSBN for a very very long time. It doesn't need anything more.


I hope this mission will provoke ideas for some littoral water scenarios. In the meantime ice is 'cool' !

I have actually resolved to stay away from contemporary scenarios. I don't want anyone to look at it and say, "that looks a little too much like blah blah blah..." and get me in trouble. It's much safer to come up with hypothetical historical scenarios from out of the Cold War that illustrate a principle that might or might not still be applicable today.

The Kara Sea scenario, is just an area clearence problem. I can change the location, change the environment, change the neutral shipping, change the time of day, change the escorts, etc. and the essentials of the problem would remain the same. It'd just be little details.

I'll let other people hypothesize about future conflicts.

[Bellman]

Just teasing about 'littoral'. ;)

You have wet my appetite - I'm not a great one for adding ice to anything but had found some nice locations
in the Sea of Okhotsk and yes snap to N of Arkhangelsk, bordering Barents.

Pre Kara I had knocked out a couple of unpublished MP scenarios but I was'nt, and am not yet, entirely
satisfied with them. However, you have sparked my interest to defrost them.

I shall look forward to your 'Strategic ASW scenario' :rock:

[SeaQueen]

I shall look forward to your 'Strategic ASW scenario' :rock:

Well... ya know... chasing a boomer during the Cold War is an easy spark for a mission idea. It puts that fate of the free world in your hands, ya know? There's also lots of good public domain sources that can give one a feel for the types of issues involved and the kinds of things one might expect.

Ice... opened water... they're all fun. Each environment has its own challenges.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I fixed the goal so that you could get 100% of the points.

I changed the distribution governing the American SSN's starting position. It shouldn't effect anything, but it will give you a chance to see a little more of the arctic.

I made the Soviet SSN exclusively an AI because it seems like not many people were willing to play this as a MP scenario. It really is best played in more than one sitting. The last time I played it, it took just under 20 hours from the starting time to killing the SSBN. The escort was still there. It's also harder from the American perspective, I think.

I want to be the exception. At least give me the frigging password to your scenario so I can change that one value.

I changed it so that the SSBN's escort would be an early model AKULA some fraction of the time, and a VICTOR III some other fraction of the time. The early AKULAs were basically just SIERRAs but made of steel instead of titanium, so I figured it'd make it a little more "period." The DW database really isn't well suited to Cold War scenarios, unfortunately, but we do what we can.

Actually, I'd argue it is better to leave it as an Improved Akula I (I assume that's what it was before). If you are in the Cold War, there will be relatively few 688I variants (is TB-23 even out yet?), and mostly Flight II and Flight Is which are noisier. At least it'd be better balanced, with both sides having a better boat. And you can play the Improved Akula.

And I password protected it, so that munchkins can't play with an SSN 21 in 1988. :-)

Gimme password. Please! Come on, don't spoil the fun. The scenario is just as good for 2005 instead of Cold War.

[SeaQueen]

I want to be the exception. At least give me the frigging password to your scenario so I can change that one value.


I'll put out the Russianized version, how about that?



Actually, I'd argue it is better to leave it as an Improved Akula I (I assume that's what it was before). If you are in the Cold War, there will be relatively few 688I variants (is TB-23 even out yet?), and mostly Flight II and Flight Is which are noisier. At least it'd be better balanced, with both sides having a better boat. And you can play the Improved Akula.


I'm not convinced it's unbalanced now. Depending on who you find first, or the relative positions of the different submarines, once you find the bad guys, it can get really shooty really fast. There's just a long period building up to that.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I'll put out the Russianized version, how about that?

Oh good. That will be a real challenge hunting Ohios (as of LWAMI, they are about 10 PSL or 20dB quieter)... fun...

[LuftWolf]

Actually, I'd argue it is better to leave it as an Improved Akula I (I assume that's what it was before). If you are in the Cold War, there will be relatively few 688I variants (is TB-23 even out yet?), and mostly Flight II and Flight Is which are noisier. At least it'd be better balanced, with both sides having a better boat. And you can play the Improved Akula.
...
Oh good. That will be a real challenge hunting Ohios (as of LWAMI, they are about 10 PSL or 20dB quieter)... fun...


SQ doesn't use mods, so this is not a convincing argument. :)

BTW, SQ why oh why don't you use LWAMI? I figure you'd be one to jump at it, unless you have professional reasons for not using amateur mods... like you have a BETTER database than ours perhaps? ;)

In any case, your mission designing skills are perfectly suited to maximizing the kind of finesse elements (or not so "finesse"... like effective sonar for AI platforms) put into LWAMI for use by the mission designers. It's a real shame you don't make missions with the modded version of the game in mind! :yep: :yep: :yep:

[SeaQueen]

[
BTW, SQ why oh why don't you use LWAMI? I figure you'd be one to jump at it, unless you have professional reasons for not using amateur mods... like you have a BETTER database than ours perhaps? ;)


Actually, I don't. I also avoid making scenarios that have to do with contemporary topics unless I can point to a newspaper article, for example, which inspired it. I don't want anything I do to be "too close" to something I might have seen. You guys might be surprised at how much out there is public domain, though, if you just know where to look.


In any case, your mission designing skills are perfectly suited to maximizing the kind of finesse elements (or not so "finesse"... like effective sonar for AI platforms) put into LWAMI for use by the mission designers. It's a real shame you don't make missions with the modded version of the game in mind! :yep: :yep: :yep:

Honestly, my feeling is that the database shouldn't matter all that much. The principle around which I designed the Kara Sea mission remains the same regardless. Different databases might change the detection ranges, and therefore the pace of things somewhat, but the essential tactical decisions one must make remain the same. That's what wargaming is all about, to me.

My biggest problems with the sim have less to do with the database and more to do with more fundamental issues. SSPs for example, still look bizarre.

One shouldn't focus too much on trying to make a "realistic" database in publically available wargames. Given the limitations of the sonar and radar models, all of the second guessing of specific numbers probably doesn't buy you much.

Speaking from experience, I think the stock DW gives results that look just fine to me. I don't look at them and think, "that's all wrong!" I'm more annoyed by things like the presense of strong thermoclines in the arctic, or the lack of a useful exploitation of doppler shift.

Databases don't really change the "realism" (if such a thing exists at all) of the game play all that much, particularly if the scenarios people construct are typically contrived anyway. In real life, sometimes I think the real design specifications are just picked out of the air by a subject matter expert because his answer is, "I don't know." Either that, or they are arrived at by tests in a laboratory somewhere which might or might not have anything to do with what happens when the systems are actually employed. Who knows what the "real" value is?

I was talking to a guy yesterday who was telling me that when they were teaching him tactics at the Naval War College, they used stock Harpoon, with none of the mods out there. They weren't out at the time. The point was to teach people to make the best decisions and to illustrate general principles, and teach you how to solve problems. It makes you THINK like a sea captain, or a TACCO. THAT makes sense to me.

All of this dickering over a few dB here and there just makes my head hurt.

[Molon Labe]

There's a lot more to the DB than noise levels...

Anyways, I played Kara Sea a few days ago, unmodded, and had detection ranges greater than 40nm. It didn't take me nearly as long as expected, but it was still a good scenario. Probably up there with the top SCX missions. :up:

[LuftWolf]

Realism is really not the point of LWAMI... it's realism is the sense that it makes the sim work as well as it can... well, at least better than the stock.

The thing is, the more I understood about the stock database, the more I came to see it as a massive anchor that really weighs down the sim, preventing it from performing well enough to be enjoyable, to me anyway.

If it weren't possible to improve the performance of stock game, I would have played the stock missions and stopped playing the game... the AI is simply non-existant in SP, and the balance is totally wrong for sustainable MP.

Think of the Sim as being an engine that is greatly in need of an oil change. :)

[SeaQueen]

The thing is, the more I understood about the stock database, the more I came to see it as a massive anchor that really weighs down the sim, preventing it from performing well enough to be enjoyable, to me anyway.

How so? To me, it's always been explained as a "realism" patch, which struck me as questionable.


If it weren't possible to improve the performance of stock game, I would have played the stock missions and stopped playing the game... the AI is simply non-existant in SP, and the balance is totally wrong for sustainable MP.


How does the database improve the AI?

My experience with the AI has been that it's actually about equivilent to the average 14 year old playing the game in many respects. For example, if you program it to "Attack" it tends to shoot early with a questionable firing solution. Actually, in that respect it's superior. It's much better at TMA than most kids.

If you program it to "Evade" it is more likely to shoot a passive torpedo if you get too close and tends to prefer sneaking away.

Balance on a platform level isn't something I worry about a whole lot in MP. If people come up with contrived scenarios, then altering the platforms to make it more "balanced" is just adding layers of contrivence.


Think of the Sim as being an engine that is greatly in need of an oil change. :)

That's possible, but without knowing more about the internals of the model, I can't make a judgement about that.

[LuftWolf]

The stock database is, to put it simply, a horrorshow.

1) AI platforms do not have effective sonar, all are set as very weak. Most platforms' sonars are limited to 7-14nm hardcapped range... modern SSN's have a 60 degree forward baffle in which they are completely deaf.

2) Some platforms have missions priorities set in such a way that they will not do what they are supposed to do

3) SubAtkSub and SubAvoidWeap doctrines in particular are very weak in terms of producing aggressive performance. AEGIS (CIWSAttack doctrine) performance is virtually non-existant.

4) The relative sound vs. speed and over all sound level has been tweaked to give a much larger range of detections on platforms... the stock database has a standard ~10db addition to noise for d/e subs at flank and a ~20db increase to noise for nukes at flank (including SSBN's).

5) All torpedoes use the same seeker with range 4500m. :shifty:

6) The game engine has a bug that allows aircraft to track submarines FOREVER once they have them on MAD or dipping sonar (capability added in the Mod), that we were able to work around using doctrines... this means that airplatforms are using permanent show truth data on all contacts they detect. Should I go on? :smug:

Oh yeah, one more I almost forget about now...

7) Torpedoes do not explode on launched countermeasures in LWAMI. :yep:

I will never make another mod that has the word "realism" in the title... that's just a hook to be honest, a legacy from when the mod simply switched the 65cm and 53cm to represent more proper Russian weapons, added the TB-23 to the 688i, and introduced underwater missile launch transients.

In any case, the readme is very thorough... I guess if that doesn't make you want to try the mod then there is pretty much nothing else to say. :lol:

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=49705

PS In rereading your last post, I think you are missing something... but I can't quite put my finger on what it is... I think you genuinely don't believe than an amateur can make genuine improvements to a product such as DW. :know: Well then, try us. :cool:

That's possible, but without knowing more about the internals of the model, I can't make a judgement about that.

PPS Everyone using the advanced capabilities of DW really needs to become proficient using DWedit to reference the database. :up:

[LuftWolf]

I think another thing to keep in mind, in reading your last post again...

You talk of programming the AI to do this and that at the mission level... well based on what I have heard, when using LWAMI, mission designers can largely set the platforms up in certain locations and they will behave intelligently on their own, for the most part.

The reason you have to program attacks and things like that for the stock game, is that AI platforms are so deaf, they will never trip the threshold for attack until they are with in a few nm of most playable contacts.

[SeaQueen]

PS In rereading your last post, I think you are missing something... but I can't quite put my finger on what it is... I think you genuinely don't believe than an amateur can make genuine improvements to a product such as DW. :know: Well then, try us. :cool:

That's not what I intend to imply at all. Actually, I follow what you do with great interest and I'm fascinated by it. In all honesty, a lot of the discussions you bring up surrounding database mods parallel discussions I see every day.

The thing is, often these questions are ones which we don't always have good answers to, and we are informed by everything we can get our hands on, with a herd of engineers, mathematicians, programmers, and physicists, and naval officers to sort through and debate it. There's a great deal of uncertainty involved in what we do. Sometimes the real answer is, "uh... I don't know... make something reasonable up..."

Fixing functionality is not what bothers me at all. I'm all for it. It's the tweaking of values, because one person says something is too loud, or too quiet, or one detection range is too long while another is too short. Often the things they're talking about seem fine to me. Since I haven't tried it (and I DO mean to, I will in all likelihood eventually) I'm very cautious about adopting it, because I don't feel too bad about what I already see. It's interesting, though, because I see less and less of that. I've noticed you frequently site environmental sensitivity, for example.

Please don't take this as a condemnation of your work at all, but rather a reflection of my tendancy to move very slowly with regards to judging one piece of work inferior. If you get to know me, you'll find that most of my thoughts are various shades of, "maybe." In time, I'm sure I'll develop my own list of issues with the stock database.

I've only recently started trying to make scenarios that I felt were playable and I felt good about. Sometimes I worry people give me too much credibility, because I make computerized wargames but by the catch is, I don't make THIS one. In that sense I'm still feeling the game out. I'm starting to develop an opinion of the stock VICTOR III, for example, and the systematic blindness you described might account for it.

I have to do things in my own time.