Version 1.08 Beta Now Available

[SaltmineMinion]

HUD looks fixed now in 1.08b

[Julhelm]

Originally Posted by Stuart666

From 'The silent deep', it would appear the sonar system on the Victor would be based upon the British Type 2001 sonar from Dreadnought, which was stolen in the Portland spy ring, the capability of which is actually listed in Silent Deep. So the active component you would expect to be pretty good, whether the signal processing was actually good enough to get a similar effect out of the passive side of it is another matter. I mean look at the report, it basically says they have ships in 1972 with sonar as good as the USN, but they dont have the processing capability to make use of it. They dont even seem at the time to have an ability to categorize the sound contacts they DID pick up. Presumably they had to depend on operator ability to do that.


im just looking the figures in the game. It lists sonar in many cases as just as effective as US submarine sonar, when looking at a period report (and the USN had to have a fairly good idea) it just wasn't happening that way in real life. I can entirely believe the Soviet Active gear was as good as Western Equipment, but the passive gear really shouldn't be comparable till the 1980s when they were making use of stolen towed arrays.


I dont think superior silencing can be the only reason. Its notable in many books how noisy Soviet boats were, and how wholly oblivious they were to it. They dont seem to have made any serious effort towards that till the walker spy ring told them how noisy they were. And that suggests to me (and this is pure conjecture admittedly) that if their own sonar systems were not capable of picking them up, they assumed the Americans couldn't either. And its not as if the American boats are that quiet, its quite clear from Polmar that the Victor was as noisy as a Sturgeon class. The Americans seemingly had little difficulty picking them up (and even used their loudness as a way of tracking the rather quieter Yankee's they escorted) but the Soviets were clearly not able to repeat the capability.

Look, im not trying to be contentious. Im just requesting someone, either the devs or one of you fellas who clearly know your stuff, seriously look at the same data there I trawled up and compare it to other references out there. I dont have the USNI reference book, but the suspicion is that they have taken data for US sonar systems and 'assumed' Russian ones of a similar age are comparable. The modern ones might be, but the information on the ones up to the 1970s are they were badly lagging behind. When the CIA was assured that Soviet sonar systems were at best half as effective as US ones in 1972, it seems the Soviet sonar systems are behaving far too effectively in game, particularly at sprint speeds. And as the USN was spending so much time trailing them, they really ought to be the ones to know.


Just my view, and absolutely no disrespect to anyone intended.

We have much better primary sources available today after the fall of the Iron Curtain than the CIA had. The russians trialled their sonars against russian boats. Thus superior silencing on US boats is probably the primary factor. That said, it is irrelevant if historically the russians were completely blind and a non-threat. It does not make for good gameplay. The game needs to be challenging in order to put you into the correct frame of mind, and as such the russians are set up to be a credible opposition. I've balanced the sensors with this objective in mind.

Btw, the passive sonars are pretty useless at sprint speeds in the game. The escorts use hunter killer teams to get around this.

[Stuart666]

Yes, but how can one say that silencing is a superior factor, when there are American boats modelled in the gameas about as noisy as the Soviet boats are? Either the modelled db level is wrong, or the sonar systems are modelled wrong.

Personally speaking Id rather go for reality and just have the Soviets come at you mob handed as they would in reality. Thats much more interesting than pretending all the submarines in the game are equal for gameplay purposes. I mean they had dozens of diesel submarines. Its not as if they cannot afford to expend boats to work out your datum.


Well I guess I can mod it to get the game I want out of it. Im already modding a 1973 campaign, I may as well have a go at the sonar systems as well.

[Stuart666]

Incidentally, what USNI guide are you fellows using, is it the 1993 edition? Just curious.

[Julhelm]

What the hell, they are not equal at all. Overall the Soviet boats are louder until the the Victor II and Victor III which incorporate rafting, as per history. The diesel boats are quiter because we assume they are running their electric engines. The only noisy US boat is the Skipjack, and even then it is far quieter than any of the boats the Soviets have in the 68 campaign. All of the US boats have better sensors in the game than their Soviet counterparts.

So quieter US subs + louder Soviet subs = large US advantage as per history. On average you are going to have at least a 10db advantage against nuke boats until you face Victor III's and Sierras, which are not that common.

[Julhelm]

Also, the USNI ref I'm using is the 2006 edition, along with History of Russian Underwater Hydroacoustics.

Both of which are better sources than period CIA documents.

[Stuart666]

Look, Im just trying to have an honest debate here, im not trying to rattle anyones chains or upset anyone. I have to say im a little disappointed when I post 3 documents that delineate actual sound levels and sonar capability, and the only answer I can get is 'well its out of date'. Please, have a look at all three and tell me that the DTIC document on sound levels in the Norwegian sea isnt just a little interesting at least? It even delineates the sound levels which look on nodding terms with those already in the game. The only point it seems to disagree is background noise.

The point im trying to illustrate is, in service these systems were upgraded. If you plugged in some of those old sonar systems with new signal processing systems later, yes, you might well end up with better results. The point is at the time in the 1970s, that was the analysis of how well they were performing. Yes, im aware there are book figures you believe are correct, but compare with historical accounts of US and British boats training these soviet boats and you are a loss to uderstand how they did it. Unless the sonar systems, for whatever reason, were not performing as well as they book says they were.

You disagree, thats absolutely fine. I had hoped for a little less aggression in trying to actually help the process along, which was my sole aim here.

And thanks for the book recommendation. Ill keep an open mind and get it.

[thereddaikon]

Stuart are you saying that US subs are too loud or Russian subs have sensors that are too good? I think as things are its close enough, especially considering the type of game we have here. CW isn't silent hunter. It's not supposed to be a hardcore sim like SH or DCS world. It's more like Strike Fighters, a sim-lite game. Realistic modeling stops when it gets in the way of good gameplay. I am fine with this. If I wanted a super accurate subsim that took me days to figure out I would play SH. I just want to sink stuff and feel like an awesome sub captain while doing it.

The Soviet Subs are clearly inferior while not being so much so that they aren't challenging.

The suggestion I would actually make is rebalancing aircraft and subs so instead of hopeless red SSNs and uncanny MPAs and Helos, the SSNs are a bit better and the aircraft are less godlike. The only subs that have ever given me trouble in this game, even on elite are modded modern Russian subs. Sierra's are mk48 food. Those Damn MPA's always know where I am though.

[Julhelm]

Historically the Soviets were unaware of blade rate and LOFAR which was a closely guarded secret in the West. For quite some time they were also unaware of rafting, which explains why they didn't pay much attention to quieting. When designing the November, the comparable US subs were the very noisy Nautilus and Skates, and the comparatively noisy Skipjack. They incorporated rafting in the Victor II and Charlies, so clearly they were aware of their noise disadvantage by then.

The sensor figures are derived from me setting up the cited trial scenarios and running them through our sensor model. For instance, Trout Cheek was set up using a Kotlin DD as the reference destroyer at 85db ambient noise. When you do that, you end up with a Trout Cheek that performs much like a BQR-2. The BQR-2 will still detect the November at twice the range the Trout Cheek can detect the Skipjack because Skipjack is a good 12db quieter, which is in line with the performance you quoted.

The detection ranges in the game also conform to reality, especially in the 1968 campaign. The famous Batfish trail was against a noisy Yankee class while the Batfish was fitted with a towed array, probably BQR-25 or TB-16. On the other hand, the Augusta collided with a Delta 1 it had failed to detect. Through Polmar we also know that Victor III could detect 688 class, and we know that perididcally Soviet boomers could penetrate out into the Atlantic without detection. We also know that on occasion, surface forces would detect intruding US submarines and harass them with small depth charges.

In the game, the US subs generally have a >10db advantage against same generation Soviet nuke subs. This translates to half the detection range using similar sonars. Only with the Victor III are the stakes more even, and in the case of Sierra, in their favor.

If the US player has too much of an advantage over the Soviets, they cease to be a credible threat and the game becomes much more unrealistic. It is possible to have a perfectly historically accurate simulation that is unrealistic simply because the player has prior information that was never available those who did the fighting back then. Having competent adversaries places you in the right frame of mind.

[The Bandit]

Originally Posted by Julhelm

Historically the Soviets were unaware of blade rate and LOFAR which was a closely guarded secret in the West. For quite some time they were also unaware of rafting, which explains why they didn't pay much attention to quieting. When designing the November, the comparable US subs were the very noisy Nautilus and Skates, and the comparatively noisy Skipjack. They incorporated rafting in the Victor II and Charlies, so clearly they were aware of their noise disadvantage by then.

The sensor figures are derived from me setting up the cited trial scenarios and running them through our sensor model. For instance, Trout Cheek was set up using a Kotlin DD as the reference destroyer at 85db ambient noise. When you do that, you end up with a Trout Cheek that performs much like a BQR-2. The BQR-2 will still detect the November at twice the range the Trout Cheek can detect the Skipjack because Skipjack is a good 12db quieter, which is in line with the performance you quoted.

The detection ranges in the game also conform to reality, especially in the 1968 campaign. The famous Batfish trail was against a noisy Yankee class while the Batfish was fitted with a towed array, probably BQR-25 or TB-16. On the other hand, the Augusta collided with a Delta 1 it had failed to detect. Through Polmar we also know that Victor III could detect 688 class, and we know that perididcally Soviet boomers could penetrate out into the Atlantic without detection. We also know that on occasion, surface forces would detect intruding US submarines and harass them with small depth charges.

In the game, the US subs generally have a >10db advantage against same generation Soviet nuke subs. This translates to half the detection range using similar sonars. Only with the Victor III are the stakes more even, and in the case of Sierra, in their favor.

If the US player has too much of an advantage over the Soviets, they cease to be a credible threat and the game becomes much more unrealistic. It is possible to have a perfectly historically accurate simulation that is unrealistic simply because the player has prior information that was never available those who did the fighting back then. Having competent adversaries places you in the right frame of mind.

To piggy-back on this, it can't be stressed enough the game-changer that the Akula was when it came out, Soviet submarines went from being predictably and dependably detectable to seemingly able vanish without a trace.

While the Sierra class did come first and an argument could be made that the Akula MAY have additional / enhanced capabilities (not much of an argument in terms of the later boats) but lets not forget that the Akula essentially came into being as a cheaper, steel Sierra which could be built in much larger numbers.

Sierras and Akulas (and to a lesser extent the Victor IIIs) were scary boats and caused a lot of headaches in the mid-to-late 80s. Lets also not forget that the Seawolf / "Ultimate COLD WAR ASW" design was basically created in response to these developments.

[-Pv-]

Warning, verbosity man attack...

"It is possible to have a perfectly historically accurate simulation that is unrealistic simply because the player has prior information that was never available those who did the fighting back then."

Unlike WWI and WWII where we have definitive documented historical stats on the effectiveness of various weapons platforms against each other, the cold war was not a naval shooting war where submarines were sinking in numbers as a result of unlimited combat. As such we really don't have deciding proof of the use of these systems verses attrition/survival rates. As a theoretical game, development will reasonably lean toward game play balance vs reality (since "reality" is guesswork theory based on unclassified-safe anecdotal stories and analysis.) As WWII demonstrated many times, superior technology on both sides can get nulled by a complex combination of battle field, environmental, social, political, leadership, resource, failure rates, training, motivation, force composition, error, chance and a nearly endless list of other factors.

Ultimately, the game becomes what the developers believe is a fantasy theme inspired by fictional publications based on known technology during politically sensitive historical settings in a "what if" game of cat and mouse.
As such, technology can be debated endlessly because there would be contradictory information from experts and analysts supporting just about every scenario war planners tried to prepare for.

In order for the game to be immersive, the devs will have what they consider a reasonably researched base line of realism expectations. To be playable over time, they'll have what they believe is a balance between threat and dominance.

Personally, I keep looking at the stated expectations for the game when released as a medium skill Red Storm Rising inspiration. It's been so long since I played RSR, portions of it has faded into dusty memory considering the hundreds of games I've played since, but I do remember having a lot of fun with it, but also it was contemporary with the popularity of the book release with few if any comparable games on the market and graphically far simpler capability compared to now.

Games now days must focus either on very broad popular markets or niche markets where there is no competition to be successful in a world where computer games have been common for over 25 years and some player bases have enormous experience and expectations while some players are just now entering the war game market.

I try to keep looking at the original un-modded game the devs designed and test to determine if I'm entertained, challenged, with lasting play value.
Can I still win sometimes over what seems like overwhelming odds? Are there fine points in the game when learned through experience which give me an edge I didn't have when I first started playing the game? Or, is the game stacked against me, frustrating me, making the time spent seem lost?
Is it too predictable where once I have understood the scenario composition, is either success or failure already determined beyond doubt resulting in closing the game.

There are games I've had for years I and return to every time KNOWING I will have a fun time with it. Every game I play gets compared to that experience. Does the game draw me back when I have other entertaining games I know I will enjoy every time?

Right now, I view CW as a playable late beta where its full potential is not yet cemented. Because of my life's interests, the theme of the game keeps me interested in the possibilities careful design may yet reveal.

Eventually, as the game matures, mod skills stabilize, if I'm still playing the game by then, I'll branch out into new territory to experience other "what if" scenarios.
-Pv-

[Wiz33]

Originally Posted by Stuart666

Look, Im just trying to have an honest debate here, im not trying to rattle anyones chains or upset anyone. I have to say im a little disappointed when I post 3 documents that delineate actual sound levels and sonar capability, and the only answer I can get is 'well its out of date'. Please, have a look at all three and tell me that the DTIC document on sound levels in the Norwegian sea isnt just a little interesting at least? It even delineates the sound levels which look on nodding terms with those already in the game. The only point it seems to disagree is background noise.

The point im trying to illustrate is, in service these systems were upgraded. If you plugged in some of those old sonar systems with new signal processing systems later, yes, you might well end up with better results. The point is at the time in the 1970s, that was the analysis of how well they were performing. Yes, im aware there are book figures you believe are correct, but compare with historical accounts of US and British boats training these soviet boats and you are a loss to uderstand how they did it. Unless the sonar systems, for whatever reason, were not performing as well as they book says they were.

You disagree, thats absolutely fine. I had hoped for a little less aggression in trying to actually help the process along, which was my sole aim here.

And thanks for the book recommendation. Ill keep an open mind and get it.

Wow, read a couple books and suddenly you're an expert in undersea warfare? We have people on this board that have done more research than that or have actual experience on modern day subs.

[thereddaikon]

Tried the 1.08b just now. Same results as 1.08, only duel and the 1968 campaign available and neither actually work. Looks like I'll be sticking with the regular releases for now.

[Killerfish Games]

Originally Posted by thereddaikon

Tried the 1.08b just now. Same results as 1.08, only duel and the 1968 campaign available and neither actually work. Looks like I'll be sticking with the regular releases for now.

Do you have any mods installed? New updates and mods don't play well together until the mods have been updated as well.

[thereddaikon]

I had deleted it but that doesn't seem to be enough. Just did a complete clean install and it works now.