Alternative to Dangerous Water?

[jrivett]

Hello, I've been playing DW for a while now and while I see from the forums that you hardcore sim types really like it, I'm afraid it's not what I'm looking for.

Here's what I want: Dangerous Waters, but with autocrew sonarmen that can actually do their jobs. I started doing a bit of research here and on other foums when I ran into problems with the DW sonar autocrew and what people seem to be saying is a) why would you want to use sonar autocrew when it's so much fun to do yourself; b) you're not really looking for an accurate sim if you're using autocrews; and the surprising c) a human player manning the sonar stations is always going to do a better job than the autocrew.

My responses to these comments are: a) sure it can be fun but I still don't want to be forced to do it; b) I want as much accuracy and realism as possible without actually having to man the individual stations (in other words, I want to run the sim as the CAPTAIN); and c) then the sim is broken, since a civilian sitting in his basement running a sim on his computer is never going to be as good at the job as a real life sonarman, no matter what he might think.

You should know that I have read all the relevant sections of the manual and done the tutorials. I know how best to help the sonar autocrew do their job. But it's never enough. They report contacts but never seem to classify or identify them.

Taking all that into consideration, is there a sim out there that's as realistic as Dangerous Waters but with autocrews (particularly the sonar autocrew) that are at least competent?

[FIREWALL]

Hi and Welcome Aboard.

Since I have the 3 major players in the Nuke boat scene I may be able to help and do it cheaply.

Btw the one that give you a hard time about how YOU want to play YOUR game usually don"t have the game.

Also the members that really know their way around these Nukes I've found to be very helpful.

I'm more of a 688i or SC fan myself and don't play DW for the reasons you mention.

These are on ebay for cheap. Includeing manuals if you take your time .

[jrivett]

Since I have the 3 major players in the Nuke boat sceneSorry, not sure I understand. What do you mean when you say you have the three major players?


I may be able to help and do it cheaply.Sounds good. But... cheaply? As opposed to expensive?


Also the members that really know their way around these Nukes I've found to be very helpful.That's encouraging.


I'm more of a 688i or SC fan myself and don't play DW for the reasons you mention.It's good to hear you say that. I was starting to think I was missing something.


These are on ebay for cheap. Includeing manuals if you take your time .I have 688i and I'm working my way through it. The sonarmen are capable, which is nice. The in-game manual includes a cavitation graph, which DW seems to be missing. But of course the graphics are outdated, etc. I'll be grabbing Sub Command when it becomes available on Gametap - hopefully soon. I've heard good things about it.

[Blacklight]

Why not get the Naval Combat Pack ? It's worth it for the money. And you get three fully patched games with it. When you get Sub Command. Make sure to get SCU/SCX for it. That addon adds so much to the game. I enjoy Dangerous Waters more than Sub Command, but both are really good. :up:

I like to do my own sonar reading. That's 90% of the fun of a naval sub sim. :up:

[Frame57]

I am with you Bro. I have found the auto crews to be pitiful. I play both games and enjoy them. But to be a Sonar tech just is not what I want to do. I took the seawolf out for a spin and my crew cannot pick up a soviet sub moving at 7 knots at 7000 yards! Our crew (a real one on the Archerfish) could pick this up realistically 1t 15K yards or more depending on SNR. I also find the torpedoes (MK-48's) screw up more often than not. It's like they designed the game to screw up. Now for the other side of the coin. I decide to drive a Sierra class (SC with SCX installed) Hey! All of a sudden I have a boat that can actually detect contacts up to 30k yards and they classify them correctly. So there are some real mod issues here with regards to reality. The Seawolf can do much better accoustically than what these games offer. For now I am stuck driving this Sierra because at least it behaves like a real submarine and the Torpedoes seem to do their job much better as well. Just a tip though. Do not use the fire control auto crew. They must be mentally handicapped because they never seem to be able to preset a weapon properly. Good luck!:D

[FIREWALL]

Why not get the Naval Combat Pack ? It's worth it for the money. And you get three fully patched games with it. When you get Sub Command. Make sure to get SCU/SCX for it. That addon adds so much to the game. I enjoy Dangerous Waters more than Sub Command, but both are really good. :up:

I like to do my own sonar reading. That's 90% of the fun of a naval sub sim. :up:


I was hopeing you'de show up Blacklight.:D I went the route you recommended for Sub Command to get SCU/SCX .

[Blacklight]

Sub Command is like an entirely different game with that mod.

I can't wait for the SCX database to get worked over to Dangerous Waters in the next LWAMI too. :up:

Hopefully it will be done sometime in the near future, but I of course don't want to super rush these guys who are working on it endless hours on their spare time. I'm willing to wait. It's going to be a really nice addition. :up: :up:

[jrivett]

Thanks for the tips! I was hoping that Sub Command was going to be a good one and from what you're saying it sound like it will be. I was planning on getting it through Gametap, but if I do that, I won't be able to add any of the mods you suggested. So, most likely I'll buy the Naval Combat Pack.

Looking forward to playing SC with SCU/SCX.

[Hawk66]

I'm more of a 688i or SC fan myself and don't play DW for the reasons you mention.

.

I've just read this thread by accident. Does that mean that the SC has better Sonar AutoCrew compared to DW?
If I am not wrong, the capability of the Sonar AutoCrew was enhanced by LWAMI?

[FIREWALL]

Updated post : I now have all three. I am in no way an expert on these sims.

Even being a noob is stretching it. :haha:


I think I can safely say all 3 are difficult as compared to SH series.

But imho that's what makes for a good sim.

Patience and Practice will prevail.

We have alot of talent on SubSim to help us noobs. :DL

We are not alone. :haha:

[Molon Labe]

If I am not wrong, the capability of the Sonar AutoCrew was enhanced by LWAMI?

LWAMI is a database and doctrine mod. It does not change other parts of the sim, such as the .dlls and .exe. The database lets us change platform attributes, and doctrines control some behavior of AI objects. Autocrew doesn't fall into either category.

[Frame57]

Whos knows? I have given up on these sims for other reasons than just the sonar issue. Seriously, how does my clunker of a diesel boat pick up sonar contacts 10 miles out almost constantly and classifies the distinction between a merchant and warship, they give the bearing, speed and whether or not the contact is closing or moving away. But NOOOOO, my Seawolf autocrew cannot do what a WW2 boat can do? In 1981 in the Med. My boat was awarded the "hook em" award. This was a naval award for given to the Archerfish for tracking an early Kilo class boat for weeks. Yep! The ultra quiet Kilo that everyone balks about was no match acoustically for a 637 class submarine. I know that we cannot have actual classified material divulged, but IMO DW and SC are not even in the ball park. Funny enough I think the old 688i sim is more accurate as far as sonar capabilities are concerned.

[FIREWALL]

Whos knows? I have given up on these sims for other reasons than just the sonar issue. Seriously, how does my clunker of a diesel boat pick up sonar contacts 10 miles out almost constantly and classifies the distinction between a merchant and warship, they give the bearing, speed and whether or not the contact is closing or moving away. But NOOOOO, my Seawolf autocrew cannot do what a WW2 boat can do? In 1981 in the Med. My boat was awarded the "hook em" award. This was a naval award for given to the Archerfish for tracking an early Kilo class boat for weeks. Yep! The ultra quiet Kilo that everyone balks about was no match acoustically for a 637 class submarine. I know that we cannot have actual classified material divulged, but IMO DW and SC are not even in the ball park. Funny enough I think the old 688i sim is more accurate as far as sonar capabilities are concerned.

I think you hit the nail on the head Frame57 about classified stuff.

I would imagine they can't give it all away. :haha:

My guess it's a game version of a training tool. :hmmm:

As XXX said " It's all we got " :haha:

[Molon Labe]

I think there is a problem of expectations here, which SCS is in part guilty of creating. SCS sims could fairly be described as "sensor sims." They simulate the function of ship stations--in fact most non-commercial sims made by SCS focus exclusively on individual stations and are used for training purposes.

It appears that many people who have come here from the Silent Hunter community are used to a very different kind of sim, where the focus isn't individual stations, but on the experience of command. These players are looking for a role-playing experience of being the skipper and would rather not concern themselves with playing the roles of the subordinate crew. The problem is, that's not what SCS sims are designed to be.

Autocrew is present for workload management and not much more. It lets you concentrate on some sensors while doing a good-enough job on the others so that you don't get completely overwhelmed. SCS also talks about autocrew as providing scalability, meaning they intended to allow players to cut certain functions out, restricting the scale of the player's experience to certain aspects. This was an irresponsible statement on their part, because they never put in the effort to make autocrew function in this way. Maybe there was a disconnect between the developers and the marketers on that. But the bottom line is that the products of the autocrew were NEVER meant to be a simulation of anything, so critiquing the fidelity of the simulation based on those products is unfair.

[Frame57]

From what I have gathered a Sub Commander actually worked with Sonalysts when they came out with 688i. Sonalysts made training SW for the Navy. I think the later sims were required to be scaled back for obvious reasons. This gives me an idea. Most of the WW2 patrol logs were declassified in 1972. So I will read some more of them to see if the sonar contacts are remotely close to what I get in SH4. Just to see if they were really that good or not.

[Hawk66]

LWAMI is a database and doctrine mod. It does not change other parts of the sim, such as the .dlls and .exe. The database lets us change platform attributes, and doctrines control some behavior of AI objects. Autocrew doesn't fall into either category.

Yes, sure. I had in my mind that LWAMI improves the autocrew by altering some sensor-related stuff in the DB. But I could be completely wrong here and these enhancements are only influencing non-player platforms.

Yeah, it is a pity that DW does not have a good sensor-autocrew. I like more being a skipper, similar to the experience in 'Red Storm Rising'.

[Molon Labe]

Sensors are in the DB. We can play with things like sensitivity, frequency, baffled areas, etc. Nothing that would have a direct effect on autocrew, though.

As I'm learning trying to mod the radars and ESM sensors for 3.10, we actually have more control over sensor properties for playable platforms than we do AI platforms.

[jrivett]

But the bottom line is that the products of the autocrew were NEVER meant to be a simulation of anything, so critiquing the fidelity of the simulation based on those products is unfair.

I have a lot of trouble with that statement. I mean, I understand your point, but I don't think that excuses how terrible the sonar autocrew is. I'm a software developer, and as such I know that shipping a product with a feature that is effectively broken is a very bad idea. At least, if you get bad reviews because of it, you have no right to complain. And the sonar autocrew is so utterly useless that it is effectively broken. I was prepared to man the sonar station in tricky or difficult situations, but assumed that the autocrew would be able to handle basic tasks with some degree of competence. In that I was seriously disappointed.

[Molon Labe]

I have a lot of trouble with that statement. I mean, I understand your point, but I don't think that excuses how terrible the sonar autocrew is. I'm a software developer, and as such I know that shipping a product with a feature that is effectively broken is a very bad idea. At least, if you get bad reviews because of it, you have no right to complain. And the sonar autocrew is so utterly useless that it is effectively broken. I was prepared to man the sonar station in tricky or difficult situations, but assumed that the autocrew would be able to handle basic tasks with some degree of competence. In that I was seriously disappointed.

I don't think you did understand the point. DW shipped with a LOT of bugs and broken features, many of which continued through the 1.04 patch and some of which were never solved. They deserve to take criticism for that--including for not having autocrew that can do everything that was advertised. I'm not letting them off the hook for that.

BUT, that is still a separate issue from using autocrew performance as a measure for the fidelity of the simulation. Because the autocrew is not designed to simulate anything, it is simply illogical to criticise the product as if it does. This takes nothing away from the argument that they were wrong not to "finish" the product before shipping it.

[Frame57]

The sale point of these sim/games were clearly marketed as being a sub skipper, not a sonar/radar/helmsman/Ft or what have you. My skipper from the Archerfish just passed away at trhe age of 70. CPT. G.R. Plummer. We spoke about issues at times of what being a sucessful Sub Skipper was all about. He told me, "You have to have a great crew and equipment, a Submarine Commander has to have situational awareness 24/7, he relies on his crew for information that makes this feasable."

I get what these sims provide, seriously, what else is there to do with a sim of this nature? You have an autocrew that should walk the plank. You have no Weapons officer to advise you on the solution etc.. etc... you do it all or you rely on a disfunctional autocrew that cannot even get weapons presets right. These are anything but a Submarine Commander experience sim. But maybe one day one will come our way. :arrgh!:

[FIREWALL]

Which makes me even more happy I paid only $8.00 new for it.

But I'm still happy with the purchase.

I think I will really enjoy it the more I get into it. :DL


Heck, I remember saying once " I'll never learn this manual targeting in SH-3 " :haha:

[Bubblehead Nuke]

I get what these sims provide, seriously, what else is there to do with a sim of this nature? You have an autocrew that should walk the plank. You have no Weapons officer to advise you on the solution etc.. etc... you do it all or you rely on a disfunctional autocrew that cannot even get weapons presets right. These are anything but a Submarine Commander experience sim. But maybe one day one will come our way. :arrgh!:

I have made this exact point with Dr Sid in reference to the ComSubSim. A captain has to let the crew, who are not dummies, do their JOB. Sure, have the option to jump in and do it, but for the most part, this CO relies on his crew to be professionals. Let them do THEIR job so you can do yours.

I can only hope that the ComSubSim becomes a reality and people can have the pleasure of handling a boat with a decent crew.

[jrivett]

that is still a separate issue from using autocrew performance as a measure for the fidelity of the simulation.
What you seem to be saying is that as long as someone gets something out of a game, it was successful. I would argue that if the vast majority of potential players were turned off by the crappy sonar autocrew, the game failed. And if it was aimed only at the small group of people who didn't care about that autocrew, then they marketed it very poorly, or even deceptively.

Because the autocrew is not designed to simulate anything, it is simply illogical to criticise the product as if it does.
If the autocrew was not designed to simulate anything, what was it in fact designed to do? What is it for? And why on earth is it in the game at all?

I'm sure there's a guy somewhere who bought a dead Lada and thinks it's really spiffy for hauling gravel behind his mule. He may be right, but he's in the minority. Most people would agree that the Lada was a really crappy car.

[Molon Labe]

What you seem to be saying is that as long as someone gets something out of a game, it was successful. I would argue that if the vast majority of potential players were turned off by the crappy sonar autocrew, the game failed. And if it was aimed only at the small group of people who didn't care about that autocrew, then they marketed it very poorly, or even deceptively.
I said nothing of the sort. DW was a commercial failure by any objective measure.


If the autocrew was not designed to simulate anything, what was it in fact designed to do? What is it for? And why on earth is it in the game at all? As I said earlier, to reduce the workload of the player.

[Frame57]

I have to disagree. having a skilled crew would in fact represent a proper subsim. Unlike flying an aircraft in a flight simulator, operating a submarine is soley dependant upon the crew with the command of the skipper.

[Molon Labe]

I have to disagree. having a skilled crew would in fact represent a proper subsim. Unlike flying an aircraft in a flight simulator, operating a submarine is soley dependant upon the crew with the command of the skipper.

Is that me you're disagreeing with? I don't recall me or anyone else stating what aspects of submarine warfare a "proper subsim" would include or not include, so I don't know what to make of this statement.

I guess I could just treat is as a new issue.

In that case, I disagree with it. I think both the role-playing/cinematic style sim (e.g. Silent Hunter) and a station-based sim (e.g. 688I-DW) are equally "proper". As are RTS-style sims like Fleet Command, for that matter. It's up to the designers to decide what aspects they want to simulate.

[Ballast]

From what I have gathered a Sub Commander actually worked with Sonalysts when they came out with 688i. Sonalysts made training SW for the Navy. I think the later sims were required to be scaled back for obvious reasons.

IMHO this doesn't make any sense. SCS stated time and time again that the physics engine and the whole realism were upgraded in DW (and in SC before it) and from past threads we can see that it's been tested by several forum members. Moreover, Sonalysts now use an upgraded version of DW and NOT 688(I) for professional (US navy) training.
If you meant the DB than we can always use the values from the older game, for the 688 at least, but I don't think they were that accurate either.
And anyway, that's exactly what the creators of LWAMI tried to fix.

[Frame57]

Well I can assure youfrom experience that our 637 class boat while in the med bagged and tracked a Kilo. We were awarded what the Navy called a "Hook em" award and MUC. It was not uncommon for our ST's to make classifications out to 20K yards as my memory dictates. I still play 688i once in a great while and the autocrew performs far more efficiently than the autocrew does in either SC or DW modded or not.

[Dr.Sid]

To me it seems that SC had fewer features, right .. but you could see the care and love and future plans in it. DW has more features, it is for sure an upgrade .. but hasty, incomplete one. As if somebody said 'let's try to squeeze something from this old engine, but don't overdo it.
Actually I think it's almost impossible to gain profit from this kind of game. That's why I'm trying to do it without profit in mind :o

[Castout]

To me it seems that SC had fewer features, right .. but you could see the care and love and future plans in it. DW has more features, it is for sure an upgrade .. but hasty, incomplete one. As if somebody said 'let's try to squeeze something from this old engine, but don't overdo it.
Actually I think it's almost impossible to gain profit from this kind of game. That's why I'm trying to do it without profit in mind :o

I think it's very possible to gain profit from developing post WWII sub sim games.

The story of SH3 is a proof that sub sim works. If the masses like WWII sub sim I don't see why they wouldn't try a post WWII sub sim. On the condition that the game quality is as good as that in SH3 of course which company like Sonalysts don't have the commitment and perhpas time to invest in.

[Hawk66]

I also have to say that, especially the 'performance' of the sonar auto crew, has dramatically reduced the joy in playing this sim for me. First and foremost I wanna be a captain with the possiblitly to check out the station myself in certain situations.

The issue is that there is no possibility to enhance the autocrew by modding it, since it is hard coded. Many other bugs/open issues can/are solved by editing the DB or the doctrine scripts. (For example the catastrophic AI concerning air platforms).

I'm not a submariner but I think the performace of any (complex) naval platform is related to the quality of the teamwork on it.

What a pity that this probably isn't tough to code, since for a basic implementation you just need to generate some random properties based on a skill level. And I also think the bad sonar AI issue could be relatively easy fixed by a patch.

By the way: Is the auto crew of Sub Command really better?

[Frame57]

I also have to say that, especially the 'performance' of the sonar auto crew, has dramatically reduced the joy in playing this sim for me. First and foremost I wanna be a captain with the possiblitly to check out the station myself in certain situations.

The issue is that there is no possibility to enhance the autocrew by modding it, since it is hard coded. Many other bugs/open issues can/are solved by editing the DB or the doctrine scripts. (For example the catastrophic AI concerning air platforms).

I'm not a submariner but I think the performace of any (complex) naval platform is related to the quality of the teamwork on it.

What a pity that this probably isn't tough to code, since for a basic implementation you just need to generate some random properties based on a skill level. And I also think the bad sonar AI issue could be relatively easy fixed by a patch.

By the way: Is the auto crew of Sub Command really better?Agreed! For whatever reason the Autocrew on 688i IS better, but not in SC IMO.

[Captain Nemo]

Well I can assure youfrom experience that our 637 class boat while in the med bagged and tracked a Kilo. We were awarded what the Navy called a "Hook em" award and MUC. It was not uncommon for our ST's to make classifications out to 20K yards as my memory dictates. I still play 688i once in a great while and the autocrew performs far more efficiently than the autocrew does in either SC or DW modded or not.

How do you know the Kilo didn't have you in it's sights also?:DL

Seriously, I like both SC and DW, SC being my preferred option, but that's a personal choice. Whilst I agree that the Autocrew could be improved upon if you like to play the CO's role in the sim, I find manning the sonar quite rewarding. In fact the only Autocrew I leave switched on is TMA, which is just too much for me to want to learn. I have played SC since it came out in the UK and added the SCX mod when it was released, which greatly improved the sim no end. My only gripe is that sometimes the AI isn't as challenging as I would like it to be, but other than that a top notch sim in my opinion. Never played 688i so can't compare SC and DW with it.

Nemo

[Blacklight]

In fact the only Autocrew I leave switched on is TMA, which is just too much for me to want to learn.

It's relatively easy to learn....if there's like one or two contacts out there, but most of the time, there's LOTS of contacts out there. I've found it best to just let Autocrew handle this function and then concentrate on getting it the best data I can. I usually handle sonar myself but in a contact rich environment, I sometimes even turn sonar over to Autocrew or else I fall behind fast.

Doing your own TMA is fun if you're in a one on one battle.:up:

[Frame57]

How do you know the Kilo didn't have you in it's sights also?:DL

Seriously, I like both SC and DW, SC being my preferred option, but that's a personal choice. Whilst I agree that the Autocrew could be improved upon if you like to play the CO's role in the sim, I find manning the sonar quite rewarding. In fact the only Autocrew I leave switched on is TMA, which is just too much for me to want to learn. I have played SC since it came out in the UK and added the SCX mod when it was released, which greatly improved the sim no end. My only gripe is that sometimes the AI isn't as challenging as I would like it to be, but other than that a top notch sim in my opinion. Never played 688i so can't compare SC and DW with it.

NemoGenerally by their behavior. When they detect an American boat they will begin to act erratically.

[goldorak]

It's relatively easy to learn....if there's like one or two contacts out there, but most of the time, there's LOTS of contacts out there. I've found it best to just let Autocrew handle this function and then concentrate on getting it the best data I can. I usually handle sonar myself but in a contact rich environment, I sometimes even turn sonar over to Autocrew or else I fall behind fast.

Doing your own TMA is fun if you're in a one on one battle.:up:


Even if there are many contacts out there, a proficient sonar player will filter out those contacts that are not relevant keeping only the most interesting one on which to do a tma.
I can agree that in singleplayer maybe putting tma on manual is too much to cope for a single person, but in multiplayer multistation with 2 players onboard it woud be a waste to have tma on auto and not manual.
Yesterday I played a great mission, 7 units in total, blu side : frigate (1p)+ helo(1p) + seawolf (2 p) + u212(1p) vs red side : 2 akula II and a kilo. Operation zone in the antartic with red side having to destroy a us installation (the kilo would search for the land target and relay the info to the akulas). Well let me tell you I was onboard the seawolf doing manual tma, weapons station and periscope and with a pretty good player on sonar we had to track many contacts (so much that at a certain point I was undergoing information overload :haha:). I had to tell my crew to stop marking every damn contact on sonar. Just look out for the interesting ones and forget the rest and what do you know, with a little search we got hold of the akula and sunk him. The other one we couldn't because the game crashed before my second attack could hit him.

[Nexus7]

If i remember well, sonar autocrew detected contacts only if the signal to noise ratio in the Broad band sonar was sufficent. No detection at all from the Narrow Band sonar, but I'm not sure.

It is a very frequent situation to see just one or two frequencies in the Narrow Band. This is practically always insufficent to classify the contact automatically...

And then the signal is also to weak to have the number of helix of the contact.

So my understanding is that to make the sonar autocrew work efficently it would have to cheat and make use of unavailable information, while if you man the sonar station yourself you can do one or two more things:

- If intelligence reports tell you there is a certain class in a certain area, you can use that info while autocrew can't.
- for example if between you and the contact there is seamountains, changing depth can tell you if the contact is surface or submerged (some times this sole information told me i was tracking a submerged contact)
- the sonar station includes the active station, with in DW was not so forbidden, especially when there were only Kilo's around...
- You might want to increase the strength of the contact's signal by changing depth, this happens quite often...

Those are some reasons that come to my mind to say that an autocrew sonar would have to cheat to do better or equal to an average manual sonar...

[EDIT] I see it more or less like doing good TMA: to do good TMA there's a need of interpretation resulting in maneuvering changes to refine the solution (witch you dont want to be automatic)

[Pisces]

...
And then the signal is also to weak to have the number of helix of the contact.
...Helix? (activates universal translator) You mean the number of screwblades/proppellor, right?

[Nexus7]

Helix? (activates universal translator) You mean the number of screwblades/proppellor, right?

Yes sorry :D

btw, were you known as "Fish" before ??? :hmm2: