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

[PL_Harpoon]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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

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

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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

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

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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

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

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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

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

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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

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

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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

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

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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

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

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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

I'm sure the life of every sailor - submariner or not - is filled with boredom and waiting. A proper sim acknowledges that and gives you, as a player, a way to skip those parts with time acceleration. CW is no exception here.
Stating for the n-th time in this post - the lack of giving orders is bad not because it makes the game difficult - it's because every time you have to manually steer the boat it reminds you that you're playing a game, effectively braking immersion.

[Shadow]

Originally Posted by Julhelm

The fact that Falcon 4 was available at the same time and much more hardcore realistic doesn't mean F-22 automatically gets denigrated to an arcade game. It's just a more casual take on the same idea. You will find a lot of people fondly remember this style of 'lite sim' even today.

I agree. There's several degrees of simulation, and Dangerous Waters' is quite detailed, but just because it's a hardcore sim doesn't mean everything below it in complexity is instantly arcade.

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

[Wiz33]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

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

Come back once you do have an argument besides fallacies.

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

[Shadow]

Originally Posted by Wiz33

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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

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

Seriously.
What is wrong with you?
Is my English that bad, that insufficient?
Do I fail so badly to bring my points across that I have to explain them to you like I would to a child, and still have to repeat myself multiple times?
Because I start to wonder what else I can do here.

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

To this reader, though you did not admit it directly, that's threatening.

There was nothing to "admit", as there was no threat at all.
Stop making assumptions.

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

What you probably really wanted to do here is do things "right" and make a proper TMA solution before shooting.

No, what I wanted is a nice game, what I got were pings at max selected range doing 5kts (ambush as usual), seconds after being ingame.
I didn't even have time to cycle through the already detected contacts until the first ping went off.
TMA? What for in this underwater-shooter?
Also, to further point out your annoying, nonsensical and inflammatory behavior of consistently assuming things about people instead of simply addressing what they actually said can be very well seen in this very example.
You even quoted the very post where I said:

However, since sending a fish down the first active-intercept bearing is enough in CW in very most cases, it doesn't even matter.

Yeah, probably "because I tried to do TMA".
Stop making assumptions.

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

But because of their aggressive use of active sonar, you did not feel safe doing that, so instead you flip off fish at the pings.

Uh, yeah, because enemy submarines are so very dangerous in Cold Waters...
See above to learn why I send a fish down the bearing immediately.
Oh and: Stop making assumptions.

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

While that does work due to the Mark 48's excellence, the relatively close ranges, and their evasion technique not being all that it could be, it still forced you to adapt to it, and I think it is only sporting to admit to that.

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

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


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

Stop that.

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

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

(no more saying he was unprovoked)

Ok, this is where it ends and where I will call for moderation to step in.
I do not need you to tell me what I can say and what not, nor will I further tolerate your incredibly inflammatory and slandering behavior, now even implying that I am a liar.It is pointless to continue this, as you still do not address what I said, but simply form your own little version of what people say and then go by that. I have to admit though, this is somewhat mind-blowing.

[LeopardDriver]

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

[difool2]

[delurking, have not bought the sim yet]

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

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

I guess I dislike set piece scenarios. <shrug>

[Wiz33]

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

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by PL_Harpoon

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

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

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

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

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

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

[cj95]

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


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

Thanks for an awesome game!

[Able72]

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

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

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

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

3. The lack of a crew voice acknowledging commands

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Raptor_Pilot]

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

Originally Posted by Philipp_Thomsen

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

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

Originally Posted by Philipp_Thomsen

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

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

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

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

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

Now, to get back on topic:

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Raptor_Pilot

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

And, who here said "CW should be a clone of DW"?
No one. Your whole point is moot.

Originally Posted by Raptor_Pilot

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

True. But someone also provided a good example about the whole "what's sim to you ain't sim to me" issue.
It is up to you to accept that people hold different opinions.
We can throw around words and definitions all day, but that won't change that some people feel that CW is a little too... thin... to be called a simulation.
Don't agree?
Fine with me, I just wish this favor would be returned for once in this thread full of people acting like they are personally attacked by other people's opinions of this title.
It's extremely silly, to say the least.

Originally Posted by Raptor_Pilot

Cold Waters, for all of it's simplistic presentation, has some very deep and capable simulation running underneath the surface. That makes it a sim, whether you like it or not.

Hehehehe...yeah, something like that.
Show me something of that "deep and capable simulation running underneath the surface", besides the rather sophisticated sonar-simulation which is ironically very over-modeled for what the game offers, as you noticed yourself.
Convergence zones... because picking up contacts in 30, 60 or more nmi really matters in CW.

Originally Posted by Raptor_Pilot

Does it simulate ENOUGH things? Yes.

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

Originally Posted by Raptor_Pilot

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

Multiple people tried to explain this, to no avail, it seems.

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Raptor_Pilot

The developers have stated their intention to add some kind of autopilot functionality into the game, so as far as I'm concerned, any complaints about the control scheme are moot the moment that is released.

Yes, that problem will then be solved, scratch one, good kill!
But let's not act as if this is the sole point people raise in the argument why CW may not deserve the title "simulator" in their opinion, it is just one of the most obvious ones - or so some people thought.
There's more, though.

Originally Posted by Raptor_Pilot

I never did like the constant litany of "New Contact Acquired" that you get in other games. It's a convoy. I'm aware there are a dozen contacts. You don't need to carefully inform me about every single one of them.

Well, sucks for you, but this is how it is done in real life.
Every contact is assigned its own designation (Sierra, Victor, Master, ...) and depending on threat, priority and relevance will be assigned a tracker and individually tracked.

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

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

[USSCheyenne]

Likes:

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

dislikes:

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

Overall loving the game, hope it will expand.

[Julhelm]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

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

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

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

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