Petition for developer (suggestions)

[YoYo]

Hello @Killerfish Games,

The first my contact with Cold Waters is very positive (aside from some of bugs ). Thank You for this title, it was very cold last time with this subject of modern submarines.

BUT.

The title use many shortcuts, I think too many and no any icons on the main screen for many. Please do menu (You can hide it or not, resized ect, like in Silent Hunter) with segregated all commands as small icons from engine silent running to very fast, from release decoy to slide periscope, from course to depth ect.

This game needs this, needs the new "in game menu" I think. Please do Cold Waters more "user friendly" for us.

[YoYo]

Next I notice leak of voices of crew (confirmations of commands, infos about damages, infos about contacts ect). It's an important thing for good feeling and spirit of title like this. Text info not enough and for USSR future subs it will be very good idea too (now only for USA side).

[oscar19681]

If i may add a Couple.

Abilty to enter or leave port in 3D for inmerssion purposes.
More sounds for your sub ( passing test depth efc etc)
More detailed seafloor
More life in the ocean ( random fish , bio contacts on the sonar )
Animated torpedo hatches
3-d controll room for immersion purposes.
Simple crew management
3D sail view for when surfaced.

[keltos01]

The ability to set up way points to navigate

[PL_Harpoon]

Here are a few my recommendations (with explanations below):

1. Active intercept should be considered a contact.

 

I know that currently thy contribute to TMA if you already have established sonar contact but if your sonar can't detect any ships but you receive pings they should be assigned as contacts with low TMA rate. Perhaps when that contact is selected display sonar type on signal comparison screen during a ping. Also if you loose contact with an enemy but still receive pings it shouldn't disappear and the solution should stay at it's current rate until it turns/changes speed.

2. There should be a way to detect helicopters/aircraft other than using periscope.

 

My idea is to use ECM mast. I don't think you should be able to detect when a heli drops a dipping sonar but your ECM should detect it's radar and based on the strenght of a signal your crew should be able to estimate a range.

3. Add refuel/rearm mechanic to helicopters and aircraft

 

I just did some simple math and it turns out that a Helix helicopter should theoretically be able to stay airborne for about 4.7 hours, Hormone about 2. With Bears it's a little bit more tricky, but the distance from any Soviet air base to Iceland is about 2000 Km, so that would mean it could stay at any place between for about 9.7 hrs. (all data from wikipedia). But that's considering that they have just took off and flew straight to mission location. You could just start with those values and add a random multiplier to account for time spend before the encounter. Another thing you could add for the aircraft to rearm once they depleted their stores of torpedoes/depth charges. If it's a Bear it could mark your last known location, call another aircraft (that would arrive after, let's say, 10 - 60 minutes) and return for refit. The same would apply to helis, but they would return to home ship, for a 20 min rearm/refuel. Another thing is that if you destroy all ships with landing pads helicopters should immediately head for the nearest land (unless you're close to Soviet occupied territory)

4. Place insertion zones a little bit further from the ports.

 

It seems absurd to me that you need to put SEAL teams 2km from enemy ports. Any sane captain would just refuse to do that. I think it's ok to make port entrances heavily guarded but perhaps place patrol areas for surface ships and proximity mines along the whole coast around the port but give us several possible insertion zones (closesr to port = higher chance of success) so that we can make a decision: shall I risk detection and try to bring them closer or risk their success and drop them in a safer place

5. Remove passive sonobuoy barriers from missions

 

I understand the value of those barriers on campaign map (when you pass them enemy subs/ASW groups will converge on that location) but placing them inside missions is just pure evil because there's just no way to detect them. I like difficulty but adding elements that can kill you without any ways of avoiding it is not difficulty. It's just pure luck.

6. Perhaps add some form of anti-air?

 

This might be controversial, cause there's no proof of US subs having any A-A capabilities, but I'm certain that if this many captains have problems with enemy aircrafts as there are people complaining on forums they would soon be issued with at least a couple of Stinger launchers. Let's say that to use them you need to surface the sail and if the aircraft is within range they would be fired automatically by the crew (unless in silence mode).

[mhj1992]

Issues I have ran into so far:

1. 3-d models disappearing / reappearing at random intervals during combat ( realism be damned, I payed 40 bucks, I want to see the damn ruskies and I want to see my fish hit them)

2. Bears / Orions appearing en masse - like 5-10 of them in the north sea where bears especially shouldn't be ( I have read they are aware of this thankfully)

3. I have scared a diesel electric boat passed its crush depth. I fired a fish, and watched as the torp was about 5-10 seconds from hitting it, then poof, gone. Hilarious, but dissatisfying.

4. Maybe it's just me, but the campaign controlling it really really slow. Trying to intercept even other subs is very hard. Maybe tweak the speed of the players sub to give the player a fair shot at encountering their missions and having to duke it out over letting them cuss at their sub as they watch the soviet subs blaze right by them just out of reach

5. Campaign issues: I keep having issues of the game "crashing" where I'm still in game, but it will randomly shift to a blue under water screen with no explanation. Only way to fix the issue is to ctrl alt delete out and turn off the program. Also, just played the mission where you attack the landing party.. Holy hell, within 2 minutes, I was torpedoed and sunk. (this is with running quiet, and trying to establish what contacts I had thus far. I have also ran into battles where I never find anything, after over 30 mins of running from one end of the grid to the other. This, along with the over load of bears, and the fact that ive had them drop as many as 3 torps on me at a time has made the campaign unplayable.

I am still cussing my innocent computer because of this games frustration so far. Id rather play 688 hunter killer over this after my experience thus far.

[Berserker]

Way points for the subs for easier course plotting..Smaller MK48 torpedo wake the one shown just could not be a realistic wake easier to use depth control a gauge for speed increments..

[YoYo]

Show the time to reload Noisemaker or give command voice when its ready again.

[The Bandit]

The thing that's kind of in my craw right now about the game is the whole port experience. Its cool that the game keeps running but, it feels like just by tying up you fail 3 objectives and the whole world is going to end (sometimes it does). I may be wrong about this but it feels like when you are just in the main screen (deciding what to re-arm or repair, and by the way I have 0 problem with the amount of time taken for some of these sorts of things) the game is still moving just as fast as it would be if you were sailing on the map screen.

Basically I don't like getting told how much I suck, and how much the Soviet's are eating NATO's lunch when all I'm trying to do is get a couple of new torpedoes and get back into the ball-game.

[PL_Harpoon]

I don't know. I've been in a situation when I had to return to port despite having a mission. Until I got there he mission failed and I was given another one. The situation repeated itself 3 times during rearm/repair and the war didn't end. In fact just after that I completed only a few missions and we drove the soviets from all of western europe and scandinavia (no red tanks on the map).
That was on hard difficulty.

[Haukka81]

Here too, failed Many missions and returned port between them-> war goes on , some time NATO wins, sometimes not.

Zero crashes or anything so far.

Runing latest beta , Windows 10 64bit

1060 6gb
I3 6100 skylake, 3,7ghz
16gb DDR4 3000mhz
SSD drives

[jenrick]

On the port issue, IIRC correctly from the original RSR, when you docked time basically froze. As you performed actions (reloaded torpedoes for example) the clock advanced. That was what I was expecting, so the way CW handles it was a bit of a shock. I agree that currently it almost seems punitive.

On another note there doesn't appear to be any time lag from having your boat shot out from under you and assigned another one. I was in the middle of a '68 campaign and was tasked with stopping an amphibious landing at Oslo. I had already had multiple engagements and was down to 6 Mk16 and 2 Mk 37's. I tried probably ten times but couldn't get back to port and then make it in time to stop the landing with the way the port time lapse currently works. Out of frustration on try 11, I went after a submarine group just to my north and didn't make it out in once piece. I was assigned a new boat, and was instantly transported to port. I was able to leave port and stop the invasion with plenty of time. I'd think having at least a 24 hour (probably longer, there is a war on after all), delay between abandoning ship and getting a new one would be reasonable for game balance.

-Jenrick

[keltos01]

could you guys implement stingers ?

you would need to surface the tower at least to fire them... I know some subs had them...

pretty pleaaase ?


keltos

[The Bandit]

Originally Posted by keltos01

could you guys implement stingers ?

you would need to surface the tower at least to fire them... I know some subs had them...

pretty pleaaase ?


keltos

To piggy back on this, I'd suggest making them part of the SEAL team, just because it would be highly non-standard and give a penalty (IIRC the SEALs take up most of your torpedo room so that you can only carry what's in the tubes) so that you won't just have everyone cruising around with SAMs all the time.

Taking a look at it though, I think you can start to see why this is something that was probably frowned upon. Much like putting rows on rows of AA Guns on the back of U-boats got it into the captain's head that it was a great idea to try and tangle with air-planes, with predictable results.

[PL_Harpoon]

Originally Posted by The Bandit

Taking a look at it though, I think you can start to see why this is something that was probably frowned upon. Much like putting rows on rows of AA Guns on the back of U-boats got it into the captain's head that it was a great idea to try and tangle with air-planes, with predictable results.

That's one way to look at it. On the other hand if a couple of captain upon returning to port would report that they had numerous encounters with enemy aircraft in which they dodged all their torpedoes but were still followed and tracked by those aircraft they might be granted a few.