Realism mod (discussion)

[Julhelm]

So Nippelspanner:

It appears you have a pretty good idea of what tactics the enemy subs should use. If you can provide these tactics to us, we can incorporate them into the AI. That'd go a long way towards getting more believable behavior out of them.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Assumptions how I play the game don't help here, especially if they are wrong.

I am not saying how you play the game, necessarily. My main point there is that there are three ways you start tactical combat, and in TWO of them you are very likely to have made some noise shortly prior to Game Start. In the third, you probably set your ambush in a certain place for a reason. So in all THREE scenarios the enemy actually has some reason to at least suspect you are there.

Whenever possible, wich is most of the time due to rather good recon everywhere, I ambush them, which sets your speed to 5kts. And no, I see no sign that the enemy detected me before or after pinging, so your assumption Ithat they ping because I was detected doesn't work out here.

I said the enemy suspected you are there, so they are doing active sonar searches. As you mention, active sonar searches aren't a panacea, so they don't always detect you, which is realistic.

Besides, while it is possible to set ambushes if they nicely tell you the guys are sending Commando Teams to Trondheim, if you are told that they are going to a larger area say the "Norwegian Sea", it is harder to say exactly which patch of Norwegian Sea it'll be, so you'll have to move. And since you never know exactly when they'll decide to tell you your mission forecloses, there's always the time pressure.

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Hope the US commander has a bad day, hope the odds are somehow in my favor?
I sure will not light a friggin emergency flare in the middle of the night hoping that I might coincidentally find something - while everything else dozens of miles away definitely now have found me.

In other words, you don't really have a plan.

Seriously, if they don't do active sonar searches, the game is reduced to a relatively simple detection/counter-detection game, which you must win because you have the better sonar and quieter ship. All you have to do is keep the passive sonar value at below 0 which you usually have the acoustic advantage to do. It is that active sonar component, which often covers that part you'll prefer to close to get off better shots, that creates the uncertainty.

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Just met two Victors in campaign, a Victor I and III.
Ambushed them, 5kts, stopped engines as soon as I was in-game.

Frankly, I remember my enemies being a bit smarter than this, but anyway, if they did not ping, the result would have been the same. Sooner or later you will simply pick them up on the passive sonar, and your tactic seems to basically consist of firing Launch-on-Bearing snapshots and there's no reason to believe they would have been less accurate.

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

So in all THREE scenarios the enemy actually has some reason to at least suspect you are there.

The point of an ambush is that the enemy does not know/suspect you are there.
What makes you assume they have valid reason - all the time - to assume your presence?
That basically comes down to "Let's ping 24/7" because "They could be here!".

Again, what are the sources for this ongoing "this was their doctrine!"?
Before we can't settle that this was or was not "the" Soviet doctrine at that time, we don't really need to debate it further, I think.

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

I said the enemy suspected you are there, so they are doing active sonar searches. As you mention, active sonar searches aren't a panacea, so they don't always detect you, which is realistic.

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.

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Besides, while it is possible to set ambushes if they nicely tell you the guys are sending Commando Teams to Trondheim, if you are told that they are going to a larger area say the "Norwegian Sea", it is harder to say exactly which patch of Norwegian Sea it'll be, so you'll have to move. And since you never know exactly when they'll decide to tell you your mission forecloses, there's always the time pressure.

Surface groups with AOR etc. go rather slow anyways, and your briefing always informs you they are leaving Murmansk, or an even further place, just now, or some hours ago, giving you more than enough time to flank-speed your way to the general area, cutting them off along the way.

It works very well for me. Not sure what else to tell you.

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

In other words, you don't really have a plan.

I'm saying how it is, not how I would like it to be.
Being in command of a Victor-I facing an LA class submarine is a garbage situation to be in anyways, no matter what you do.

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Seriously, if they don't do active sonar searches, the game is reduced to a relatively simple detection/counter-detection game, which you must win because you have the better sonar and quieter ship. All you have to do is keep the passive sonar value at below 0 which you usually have the acoustic advantage to do. It is that active sonar component, which often covers that part you'll prefer to close to get off better shots, that creates the uncertainty.

Where did I say enemy subs should never use active sonar?
Right, I didn't - so why imply it?

Again, I argued that them doing it all the time, is simply nonsensical, for reasons stated earlier - and so far not being challenged besides a broad and unsupported assumption that "they have reason to expect you" which I don't agree at all on considering the various tactical situations/encounters I had so far.

Also, why do other subsims don't do that and go for the silent apporach?
And why can fighting enemy submarines in these titles still be very challenging, even if you have the better boat?

Because these games require you to do more than just sending a fish down an active-intercept bearing, that's why, and because the enemy AI is, from what I witnessed, more effective.
Also, do we know the sensors in CW are authentic?
Maybe Russian submarines are under-modeled, or US subs over-modeled?
I'm not claiming either way, but - how do we know?

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Frankly, I remember my enemies being a bit smarter than this, but anyway, if they did not ping, the result would have been the same. Sooner or later you will simply pick them up on the passive sonar, and your tactic seems to basically consist of firing Launch-on-Bearing snapshots and there's no reason to believe they would have been less accurate.

Exactly, because the AI is lacking - no matter if in active/passive encounters.

At least from my POV.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

The point of an ambush is that the enemy does not know/suspect you are there.

Yes, that's the goal of the guy setting the ambush. That's not the same as the enemy not even suspecting you are there. Real ambushes tend to be set at certain locations, like chokepoints, close to the place that they are going anyway and so on. For a professional, it is often possible to think "OK, if I'm the enemy I'll set an ambush here."

What makes you assume they have valid reason - all the time - to assume your presence?

First, it is not all the time. I just did a campaign just to try out your BoL launch strategy. Like you, I managed to be at 5 knots when the combat started. My enemies who turned out to be a Romeo escorting a Juliett did not run into the game pinging, so it really isn't all the time. But it didn't matter since my sonar immediately got bearing on Romeo, who was above the layer. Instead of waiting to develop any solutions, I just snapshotted and then began moving through the layer and that's about when I detected Juliett under the layer (no pinging yet) so I snapshotted another torpedo.

The closer Romeo did die rather nicely (though w/o a replay it is hard to be sure whether another move could have saved him) and about then the Juliett started to ping (they really don't just ping from the outset all the time) but at least he isn't losing anything because I already have firm contact on his engines with my sonar.

About then the range firmed up, showed Juliett like 30Kyards+ away, and on course of 75 degrees at 18 knots and kept running. Anyway, the torpedo never reached Juliett.

And then Juliett just kept running. It wasn't the smartest move since I was in his baffles, but it was kind of smart since his distance et al meant that he is beyond my continuous tracking speed - I can't hold contact with him at Ahead Standard so I have to sprint and drift. If I'm not aggressive and take some risks in pursuing him, I'd lose him. Well, eventually I ran him down and I don't think I was ever endangered, but heck it was a Juliett so great things could not have been expected anyway.

Again, what are the sources for this ongoing "this was their doctrine!"?
Before we can't settle that this was or was not "the" Soviet doctrine at that time, we don't really need to debate it further, I think.

For what its' worth, on P.173 of Cold War Submarines, they do mention what happened when USS Batfish tracked a Yankee in 1978, and apparently that sub used its Kerch sonar a lot. So what's happening (and it is NOT all the time) does at least have a basis.

See above, and they do always detect you.

If they can detect you like that (better than if they tried to go passive on passive with you), then at least it is an effective tactic.

Where did I say enemy subs should never use active sonar?
Right, I didn't - so why imply it?

Well, you certainly hadn't given much hint of when you feel it is appropriate.

Again, I argued that them doing it all the time, is simply nonsensical, for reasons stated earlier - and so far not being challenged besides a broad and unsupported assumption that "they have reason to expect you" which I don't agree at all on considering the various tactical situations/encounters I had so far.

Remember that this is a game with a "jump" between the strategic and tactical maps, and there is some abstraction during the transition. Also remember there is only one basic AI in this game which has to provide an somewhat plausible challenge to a wide variety of encounters from a wide variety of players. Some may like running into enemies at 26 knots. Some may prefer the patrol speed. Others painstakingly try to ambush. Upon encounter, some use the "Close to" function and some don't. But there is only one AI.

Given this, from the way the game and options are set up, there are clearly many more ways to enter the fight where the enemy can plausibly be given some acoustical warning, so inevitably the AI's optimization would be for those scenarios. You, the deliberate Ambusher, are on the fringe.

Further, as mentioned, in reality, it is often possible for a professional to identify likely points of ambush. However, it is not realistic to expect the AI to be able to make a "fair" judgment as to whether it can or should know it is headed into a Probable Ambush Area. This game's solution to the problem seems to be to assume if the Player (roleplaying a professional Captain) can make that call, the AI (same) can and should be able to tell as well, which is at least an equitable solution to this problem.

And again ... it just isn't all the time.

Also, why do other subsims don't do that and go for the silent apporach?[/I]
[I]And why can fighting enemy submarines in these titles still be very challenging, even if you have the better boat?

As I said, I hadn't played Fast Attack so I can't compare with that. But as I said I did play the 688I Hunter Killer through Dangerous Water line. The AI submarines there may or may not be better at dodging - though I don't remember killing them as anything that hard. I remember detecting when they start evading is much easier since all you really do is stare at the DEMON and when the lines start going right that's when they are evading - you actually have to wait a bit longer in CW to know when they've started evading.

The main thing about AI enemies in games is not their survival. Their main job to be blunt is to give the player some pressure (read, threaten to Kill Player), and frankly on this score Cold Waters does much better than Dangerous Waters. As you say, other games program their AI to leave pinging to the surface ships and the subs are all passive. Since you have an acoustic advantage, once you learn to work the stations (and really, I never mastered TMA but frankly once you've classified the sub with narrowband and then used DEMON to check its speed TMA becomes very easy) you are pretty safe, especially since DW doesn't really punish all that heavily for brief indiscretions. I'm hardly a star player and I still feel comfortable with doing all kinds of crap in Dangerous Waters, up to and including using active sonar (if I'm on an American sub, I remember being completely unable to pick out blips on the reddish Russian active sonar) for targets up to about 20 K-yards, or using the Main Ballast Tanks to increase my climb rate (and then venting and making the automated planesmen compensate for my recklessness, which they do).

In other words, your game experience differs from mine.
That's the purpose of the thread, I guess.

As for the doctrine.
If I hear that "chased a pinging sub" argument one more time I probably start crying.
It was one incident. One single, isolated incident, that is now being used as a base for decades(!) of cold war tactics?
I find that a little daring.

But we can agree to disagree.

[The Bandit]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

In other words, your game experience differs from mine.
That's the purpose of the thread, I guess.

As for the doctrine.
If I hear that "chased a pinging sub" argument one more time I probably start crying.
It was one incident. One single, isolated incident, that is now being used as a base for decades(!) of cold war tactics?
I find that a little daring.

But we can agree to disagree.

Actually, no, Whitey Mack's USS Lapon patrol happened in 1969. The incident mentioned about the USS Batfish happened almost a full 9 years later in 1978. While both incidents did involve the same (Yankee class) type of SSBN (which had to travel a good ways to get into their patrol zones off the east coast, thanks to their short ranged missiles) its very telling that the Soviets were willing to be so liberal with their active sonar on a boomer no less.

Its also very interesting that they seem to still be using similar tactics after 10 years, especially when put into context with the well known intelligence compromises from Johnny Walker and the USS Pueblo and what the Soviets probably knew about the USN by 1978.

[jenrick]

I think the appropriate question on soviet doctrine, is what other accounts of documents are available to so them using active sonar at a much higher incident then the West might have or not? If all the sources indicate they did, well then the normal pattern of historical research is to say that they probably did. Now two instances isn't a lot to base anything off of, but if it's all you have it's all you have.

I also don't view it as firing off an emergency flare personally. If I'm in the dark woods being hunted potentially by a wolf (we both have hearing, his is just significantly better then mine), I'm gonna use my flash light. It's the only chance I have. Please not the word potentially, that's the situation when we ambush them. It's wartime there's always a potential threat. A US sub is quieter, it has better passive gear. WTF do you do other then go active? Stay at home and don't fight a war was the historical answer, but beyond not even being there?

I agree that it runs absolutely counter to everything the West has developed about submarine warfare. This is also the country that launched counter attacks in WW2 with every man having a 5 round stripper clip of ammunition, and one in 5 or so having a rifle. The idea being that as men with rifles were shot, those without could pick them up. Losses against results, not a question of the human factor. There is a very different thought process in work due to cultural difference.

I also agree that their current torpedo evasion leads this to be a far more detrimental tactic then it might otherwise be.

-Jenrick

Originally Posted by Julhelm

So Nippelspanner:

It appears you have a pretty good idea of what tactics the enemy subs should use. If you can provide these tactics to us, we can incorporate them into the AI. That'd go a long way towards getting more believable behavior out of them.

I didn't say that.
All I said is that I doubt the "let's ping away all day long because our sensors suck" doctrine is/was actually a thing, as it contradicts everything submarine-warfare.
So far I haven't seen any source for this, and that the torpedo evasion of the AI is just really lackluster - together with a few other things. In no way did I say or imply I am some master tactician, did I?

Torpedo evasion really is the biggest problem right now, pinging doctrine or not aside (makes no difference in combat anyways it seems)

I just played a round with the latest beta patch and finally had a tough fight against two Sierras, who really drove my boat to its limits. Did you do something between 1.01 and 1.02 in that regard, or was it random?
Because this was the first sub vs sub fight that actually felt like, well, a fight... up to the point where one Sierra decided to run straight at my incoming torpedo...

"combat tactics Dr. Ryan, duh!"

Anyways, before that, I never had any problems fighting subs, it was actually easier than any surface engagements, no matter if fighting old Foxtrots or Victor III, it never was a challenge.

So, enemy subs should be able to figure out if they can outrun a torpedo, or need to evade horizontally, moving out of its arc in addition of using counter-measures smarter (basically always the case in CW due to short distance engagements).
That would help a lot already.
I don't know what they're doing at the moment, but it just isn't working at all.