Realism mod (discussion)

[PL_Harpoon]

I think, with all the available exposed parameters it's more up to us, than developers to find the most realistic parameters for various systems in the game.

The reason for this thread is that we can discuss ideas to make the game more realistic within the boundaries of what's currently possible. I don't want this thread to turn into "what could have been done if the devs do xxx" so that we can focus on the actual improvements. Then we could put everything together and release as a realism mod.

For starters, here are a couple of ideas from me:

1. The towed array should be more sensitive in comparison to spherical one.
While playing DW I noticed that towed array usually can detect targets at almost twice the range of sphere sonar. I could be wrong with the numbers here but I think there's enough people here with enough knowledge to find the proper values. In any case I think we should either improve the towed array or nerf passive sonar.

2. Mark 48:
- sensor range should be 1600 instead of current 4000 (according to this site: https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-48.htm)
- sensor angle should be smaller (currently it's 80 which I think is a little too large)

3. MAD sensor range should be around 200-400 yards, not 1000.
(according to this paper: http://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/19199/comparisonofthre00schl.pdf?sequence=1)

4. Sonobuoys should be less effective than dipping sonar - that's just my impressions with my limited time with DW.

What do you think about those ideas?

[Delgard]

What file are these adjusted in? I am thinking a config-type file.

[PL_Harpoon]

MAD range is in config.txt

Sonar/sonobuoys is in sensors.txt

MK48 is in weapons.txt

All in Cold Waters\ColdWaters_Data\StreamingAssets\default

[Delgard]

Thanks PL_Harpoon

[PL_Harpoon]

Did some research on Russian torpedoes and found some interesting data:

TEST-71
real range should be about 22000 instead of 27300 yards
sensor range: 1500 vs current 800

UGMT-1
The sources I found show that it should have a small warhead of 60 Kg. Currently it has 185.

[The Bandit]

I think, with all the available exposed parameters it's more up to us, than developers to find the most realistic parameters for various systems in the game.

The reason for this thread is that we can discuss ideas to make the game more realistic within the boundaries of what's currently possible. I don't want this thread to turn into "what could have been done if the devs do xxx" so that we can focus on the actual improvements. Then we could put everything together and release as a realism mod.

For starters, here are a couple of ideas from me:

1. The towed array should be more sensitive in comparison to spherical one.
While playing DW I noticed that towed array usually can detect targets at almost twice the range of sphere sonar. I could be wrong with the numbers here but I think there's enough people here with enough knowledge to find the proper values. In any case I think we should either improve the towed array or nerf passive sonar.

2. Mark 48:
- sensor range should be 1600 instead of current 4000 (according to this site: https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-48.htm)
- sensor angle should be smaller (currently it's 80 which I think is a little too large)

3. MAD sensor range should be around 200-400 yards, not 1000.
(according to this paper: http://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/19199/comparisonofthre00schl.pdf?sequence=1)

4. Sonobuoys should be less effective than dipping sonar - that's just my impressions with my limited time with DW.

What do you think about those ideas?

I think this is a good idea, and you're generally right in what you are saying, however there are always exceptions.

Early 80s for towed array is a little iffy for me, I think the 688s just had the TB-16 starting out (so did some of the Sturgeons) but many of the others had earlier "clip-on" types BQR-15 and -23 if I'm not mistaken, which were a step or two behind the TB-16 and came with speed restrictions (would be very interesting if the clip-on Towed array could be an inventoried item like the sonobuoys, so if you ripped it off you could choose to fit another when you enter port).

As far as the sonobouys, I'm in agreement, typically I wouldn't think that the batteries would be as strong as what a helo could put out through a dipping sonar, however what I'm most interested in when it comes to buoys is if they act like they "should" specifically if they are alternated over / under the layer and if the AI will use / has to use patterns to correctly localize a contact. My understanding is that until the electronics got a bit more sophisticated, the passive buoys were very general with little to no bearing information, so typically patterns would be dropped and signal strengths compared to localize the contact (or you could risk just dropping an active buoy if you think that the passive contact is strong enough). The point I'm trying to get across is that I don't feel that dropping one buoy which is then followed by a rain of depth charges and torpedoes really fits with realism.

[Delgard]

The MAD Sensor Range setting, where is it located? I looked in Aircraft and Sensors.

[Onkel Neal]

The one thing I would like in a realism mod is an option to turn off real time torpedoes on the map, and replace with bearing lines and sonar pings that get louder and faster.

[Delgard]

Hmm, I would think the Sonar operator would have that and be calling out distance, even general depth as in above or below a layer.

Jonesy did it on the Hunt for Red October...

[Stardog765]

Very excited to see this thread. I can't wait to see what this community comes up with.

[ScreamingElectron]

You all are spot on as far as the torps being OP.
Working on correct detection ranges and active countermeasure mod right now. Keep your eyes peeled :Kaleun_Cheers:

[ScreamingElectron]

It's up!

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2490569#post2490569

[PL_Harpoon]

Nice. I'll be trying it today.

On another note, I'm also thinking about increasing hull strength on Soviet nuclear subs.
Unfortunately hull strength values are not exposed for individual ships so we'll have to use those from difficulty settings (perhaps they're based on displacement?).

[schurem]

Well, since the 1.01b patch, the soviet subs take a lot of killing, that's for sure. In 1.0 one Mk-48 would usually end a Victor's active career. In 1.01b it takes at least two to shut them up.

They also keep firing even after blowing emergency ballast or sinking to the bottom. I once steered my Mk-48 into the nose section of a Victor-I in order to disable its tubes, but to no avail. It just kept on spitting fish at me.

On another occasion, I managed to put three Mk-48s in a Typhoon and it sat on the bottom but still launched two fish at me. I took one hit and managed to lure the other into the hissing wreck of the Typhoon. That did him in in the end :arrgh!:

[PL_Harpoon]

Well, since the 1.01b patch, the soviet subs take a lot of killing, that's for sure. In 1.0 one Mk-48 would usually end a Victor's active career. In 1.01b it takes at least two to shut them up.

They also keep firing even after blowing emergency ballast or sinking to the bottom. I once steered my Mk-48 into the nose section of a Victor-I in order to disable its tubes, but to no avail. It just kept on spitting fish at me.

On another occasion, I managed to put three Mk-48s in a Typhoon and it sat on the bottom but still launched two fish at me. I took one hit and managed to lure the other into the hissing wreck of the Typhoon. That did him in in the end :arrgh!:

True. That's why I'm thinking about reducing US hull strength instead of buffing theirs.

[cj95]

Given the power of modern torpedoes and the great stresses modern sub hulls are under is there any "realistic" scenario where more than one torpedo would be needed to kill a sub?

(except maybe for a monster like a Typhoon)

I see videos of torps snapping destroyers in two and have to wonder how anything survives even a single hit.

(has there ever been a test of such a thing?)

[FPSchazly]

Any major breach of a US pressure hull with explosives is pretty much game over. US subs can't survive flooding of any one compartment. The double-hull configuration of most Soviet subs gives them more reserve buoyancy, so they have a greater chance of surviving a torpedo hit. I have no data to back this up, however I don't think any smaller Russian SSN would survive a MK48 hit, that torpedo just has such a huge amount of explosives. Lightweight ASW torpedoes, yeah it would probably take more than one. Something big like an Oscar or Typhoon could definitely be a different story.

[PL_Harpoon]

I see videos of torps snapping destroyers in two and have to wonder how anything survives even a single hit.

(has there ever been a test of such a thing?)

Yeah, these videos got me thinking as well. However, the torpedo was able to snap it in half because it detonated below the ship. Direct impact would probably produce lesser results.
On the other hand it still has a powerful warhead and as far as I know it was like that from the start.
So, perhaps we should set player hull modifier at 0.6 and enemy at 1 or 0.8.


On another note, I did some testing regarding ship acceleration. And by testing I mean comparing CW to DW. Turns out it take almost twice as much time to reach flank speed in CW, than in DW. (LA class: 1:52' in Cold Waters vs 0:58' in DW). The problem is, it looks like CW doesn't take screw speed into consideration when calculating accelerations, so 0-5kn time is the same with 1/3 power as with full power.
Below is a comparison of various times done with a simple stopwatch:

http://oi68.tinypic.com/2mmwff9.jpg

[FPSchazly]

On another note, I did some testing regarding ship acceleration. And by testing I mean comparing CW to DW. Turns out it take almost twice as much time to reach flank speed in CW, than in DW. (LA class: 1:52' in Cold Waters vs 0:58' in DW). The problem is, it looks like CW doesn't take screw speed into consideration when calculating accelerations, so 0-5kn time is the same with 1/3 power as with full power.
Below is a comparison of various times done with a simple stopwatch:

http://oi68.tinypic.com/2mmwff9.jpg

That is a good point. Are there any real-world submariners out there that can comment on this? It's like driving a car. Cruising on the highway, you're using a certain throttle (making turns for that speed, as it were). If you were to accelerate to that speed using the cruising throttle, it would take forever (infinitely long in a mathematical sense). So, you use more throttle to accelerate to that cruising speed and then reduce throttle to maintain that speed once you attain it. I'm curious as to the distinction for this in naval turns. "Make turns for x knots" means (I would think) turn the propeller at the speed necessary to maintain x knots indicated. Would there be a situation where you apply more throttle to get to speed x more quickly and then reduce throttle?

[Skwabie]

the reduced warhead weight on beta 1.01 is double edged.

it makes tactical game play more interesting.

it makes the player able to survive hits easier.

However. it makes campaign play harder. because player has to travel a lot more back to base for reloads and miss mission time windows.


considering the latter i've reverted to 1.00 weights. plus from the looks of data, the reduced weight is not "universal" i.e. only a few weapons got it. the Mk48 has almost the same warhead as MK37 in beta1.01 due to its warhead weight reduction, but in RL the mk37 is much lighter.

[PL_Harpoon]

the reduced warhead weight on beta 1.01 is double edged.

it makes tactical game play more interesting.

it makes the player able to survive hits easier.

However. it makes campaign play harder. because player has to travel a lot more back to base for reloads and miss mission time windows.


considering the latter i've reverted to 1.00 weights. plus from the looks of data, the reduced weight is not "universal" i.e. only a few weapons got it. the Mk48 has almost the same warhead as MK37 in beta1.01 due to its warhead weight reduction, but in RL the mk37 is much lighter.

Yeah, Mk37 should have 149kg warhead, not 225, but that's easily fixable. Overall looking at the numbers the new warhead sizes are closer to real ones.

[Skwabie]

Yeah, Mk37 should have 149kg warhead, not 225, but that's easily fixable. Overall looking at the numbers the new warhead sizes are closer to real ones.

MK48 v1.00 550, b1.01 295
MK37 v1.00 225, b1.01 225

something disconnects here, why MK48 ~halved and MK37 same (along with many others unchanged between 1.00 and 1.01)?

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_PostWWII.php

Mk37 real: 150kg HBX -> 225 kg TNT equivalent (assuming HBX = 1.5 TNT)
Mk48 real: 292.5 kg PBXN-103 -> 544 kg TNT equivalent as noted

Since they posted the warhead weight being TNT weight, the 1.00 numbers should be closer RL values. i think they are changed for more interesting gameplay reasons.
For how many torps it takes to sink a ship, personally i think the 1.00 warheads is spot on. destroyers and attack subs, 1 hit is enough. shoot at the SSG/BNs, or Kirov or Kiev, it takes anywhere from 2-4. big ships are just rarely encountered due to the in-game battles setup more against small ships.
More importantly, the weak warheads makes campaign mode.. will so far a bit ridiculous. It is doable, but a lot harder. like one battle later it's return port to re-arm for 3 dayz. - Maybe also double the loadout capacity of player subs, then halve the reload in-port time of weapons. Anyway thankfully this is all moddable lol.

[Haukka81]

I hope that they boos weapons back, double loadout would be just stupid move to too arcade style game.

I hope that this is not sing of end, i mean that many games are ruined when devs lose their orginal "red line" or goal. :oops:


-

[PL_Harpoon]

MK48 v1.00 550, b1.01 295
MK37 v1.00 225, b1.01 225

something disconnects here, why MK48 ~halved and MK37 same (along with many others unchanged between 1.00 and 1.01)?

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_PostWWII.php

Mk37 real: 150kg HBX -> 225 kg TNT equivalent (assuming HBX = 1.5 TNT)
Mk48 real: 292.5 kg PBXN-103 -> 544 kg TNT equivalent as noted

Since they posted the warhead weight being TNT weight, the 1.00 numbers should be closer RL values. i think they are changed for more interesting gameplay reasons.
For how many torps it takes to sink a ship, personally i think the 1.00 warheads is spot on. destroyers and attack subs, 1 hit is enough. shoot at the SSG/BNs, or Kirov or Kiev, it takes anywhere from 2-4. big ships are just rarely encountered due to the in-game battles setup more against small ships.
More importantly, the weak warheads makes campaign mode.. will so far a bit ridiculous. It is doable, but a lot harder. like one battle later it's return port to re-arm for 3 dayz. - Maybe also double the loadout capacity of player subs, then halve the reload in-port time of weapons. Anyway thankfully this is all moddable lol.

Well, looks like you're right. Too bad there's no info about what type of explosive the Soviets used in their torpedoes. Cause I doubt it was TNT.

In that case we'd have to set US warheads to their 1.0 values and use some sort of multiplier for Soviet ones. Unless someone will provide info on the type of explosive used in their torps.

[Julhelm]

I think they got changed back because people complained about one hit killing cruisers with Mk48s = too easy.

[PL_Harpoon]

Perhaps make surface ships more durable in general? Or add a variable, like "hull strength" to ships (from what I tested it seems to be based on ship displacement), so that it's possible to tweak it for individual vessels.

I'm not an expert here but I do think that surface ships should be harder to kill that subs.

[Haukka81]

Ships should use decoys, towed etc.. but yes , 1-2 direct hits should make ships go down (least cruisers) and 1 direct hit should sink sub about 98% time. But i hope that dev's will tune this more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jenrick]

I'm by no means an expert in naval architecture, torpedo design, or the physics of underwater explosions.

I thought that one of the major advantages of the post WW2 US torpedo design with the Mk48 was that it would automatically attempt to detonate under the keel of a vessel, versus going for an impact against the hull. As we know from WW2, even a single well placed torpedo had a decent chance of doing non-survivable damage to pretty much anything smaller then a cruiser. That was also to ships built to a very sturdy design standard, that was moved away from by most of the worlds military's over the years. The MK48 has a warhead that is slightly more powerful then MK14 mod 3 torpedo of WW2 (approximately 1200 lb TNT equivalent to 1000 lb TNT equivalent). So I think the effectiveness of a MK48 detonating under a ships keel or on contact should be equivalent roughly to what was seen in WW2 at a minimum.

One of the major issues in CW is that a ship is either in fighting trim (I'm have no clue if they are degraded when damaged, but they are certainly not out of the fight) or they are sinking. I have yet to see a propulsion casualty, a ship break off and run after being torpedoed etc. There also isn't the slow death of a ship, where you spend 30 mins to a couple of hours waiting for it to slow down and slowly sink that historically was pretty common. If a ship sustains enough damage, it simply sinks right then and there.

I think the ideal answer would be to have a mechanism for the degradation of the ship when damaged, and it's sinking be based on the nature of damage etc (if only wishes were fishes.....). However based on the current binary (alive, firing, and driving or sunk) conditions of ships, I think it works out. Would a cruiser be headed to the bottom within 30 seconds after impact by a single torpedo that detonates near the bow? Probably not, but it might be after 3-4 hours. As a player I'd love to have the longer sinking time as it keeps me guessing if it's still in the fight, but the end result is still a sunk ship.

TLDR: With the current surface ship damage modeling, the 1.0 torpedo damage levels provide the correct result. However due to the limitations of the game, the graphical representation appears to be off.

-Jenrick

[PL_Harpoon]

...Would a cruiser be headed to the bottom within 30 seconds after impact by a single torpedo that detonates near the bow? Probably not, but it might be after 3-4 hours. As a player I'd love to have the longer sinking time as it keeps me guessing if it's still in the fight, but the end result is still a sunk ship....

I agree on that one. Subs have damage modelling and flooding, surface ships should have those things as well.
Then, unless the ship gets destroyed on impact the explosion would damage the hull and create flooding, just like in subs and the ship would be registered as sunk only after its hull passes below water. Such ships would not be firing, cause all available hands would be busy trying to keep it afloat or preparing lifeboats.

Similar thing could be applied to subs (playable ones included) only that they would be marked as sunk after they hit the ground with no way of going up or reaching crush depth.

But, as you said, so far 1.0 values are our best option.

[FPSchazly]

I'm by no means an expert in naval architecture, torpedo design, or the physics of underwater explosions.

I thought that one of the major advantages of the post WW2 US torpedo design with the Mk48 was that it would automatically attempt to detonate under the keel of a vessel, versus going for an impact against the hull. As we know from WW2, even a single well placed torpedo had a decent chance of doing non-survivable damage to pretty much anything smaller then a cruiser. That was also to ships built to a very sturdy design standard, that was moved away from by most of the worlds military's over the years. The MK48 has a warhead that is slightly more powerful then MK14 mod 3 torpedo of WW2 (approximately 1200 lb TNT equivalent to 1000 lb TNT equivalent). So I think the effectiveness of a MK48 detonating under a ships keel or on contact should be equivalent roughly to what was seen in WW2 at a minimum.

One of the major issues in CW is that a ship is either in fighting trim (I'm have no clue if they are degraded when damaged, but they are certainly not out of the fight) or they are sinking. I have yet to see a propulsion casualty, a ship break off and run after being torpedoed etc. There also isn't the slow death of a ship, where you spend 30 mins to a couple of hours waiting for it to slow down and slowly sink that historically was pretty common. If a ship sustains enough damage, it simply sinks right then and there.

I think the ideal answer would be to have a mechanism for the degradation of the ship when damaged, and it's sinking be based on the nature of damage etc (if only wishes were fishes.....). However based on the current binary (alive, firing, and driving or sunk) conditions of ships, I think it works out. Would a cruiser be headed to the bottom within 30 seconds after impact by a single torpedo that detonates near the bow? Probably not, but it might be after 3-4 hours. As a player I'd love to have the longer sinking time as it keeps me guessing if it's still in the fight, but the end result is still a sunk ship.

TLDR: With the current surface ship damage modeling, the 1.0 torpedo damage levels provide the correct result. However due to the limitations of the game, the graphical representation appears to be off.

-Jenrick

I have had ships break contact. If I attack a landing force, I've had the escorts come after me while the LSTs disengage. Also, I've hit a Kirov with one torpedo to have it disengage while the escorts come after me.

I've also experienced ships being "killed" but staying afloat and burning for the remainder of the match.

[ScreamingElectron]

I've considered addressing the warhead values in my mod as well. Until last night. I shot at a krivak and Grisha (I think), and one of the boats took 2 torps. The first one I shot took damage, and proceeded to run away for about 3-5 minutes, before sinking. The second was busy digging out when I put torp #2 up his ass.
I guess my point is that we should give the devs time to sort things out themselves as well. There will always be time to clean things up when they've decided to retire.

[jenrick]

I have had ships break contact. If I attack a landing force, I've had the escorts come after me while the LSTs disengage. Also, I've hit a Kirov with one torpedo to have it disengage while the escorts come after me.

I've also experienced ships being "killed" but staying afloat and burning for the remainder of the match.

I wasn't referring to craft fleeing combat, that I have seen. I hand't seen a combatant flee after being damaged, interesting. I put 2 fish into the Kirov, and it just came barreling in (2 which 2 more fish solved that issue).

On the burning ship, was it marked as a kill on the tac map? Also were you close enough for it to have launched weapons? I'm curious about what all is modeled now.

-Jenrick

[ScreamingElectron]

That is a good point. Are there any real-world submariners out there that can comment on this? It's like driving a car. Cruising on the highway, you're using a certain throttle (making turns for that speed, as it were). If you were to accelerate to that speed using the cruising throttle, it would take forever (infinitely long in a mathematical sense). So, you use more throttle to accelerate to that cruising speed and then reduce throttle to maintain that speed once you attain it. I'm curious as to the distinction for this in naval turns. "Make turns for x knots" means (I would think) turn the propeller at the speed necessary to maintain x knots indicated. Would there be a situation where you apply more throttle to get to speed x more quickly and then reduce throttle?

Also, consider that cavitation will reduce the output thrust of any propeller. A spin speed adequate to run 25kts on the surface will (if cavitating) generate a higher speed at non-cavitation depth. There are tons of variables and factors to consider here. Being a Unity developer myself, and having looked at the source for this game, I can assure you that the poor programmer(s) is already dealing with a mind-crushing amount of variables and functions.
Give them some more time to fine tune.

[FPSchazly]

I wasn't referring to craft fleeing combat, that I have seen. I hand't seen a combatant flee after being damaged, interesting. I put 2 fish into the Kirov, and it just came barreling in (2 which 2 more fish solved that issue).

On the burning ship, was it marked as a kill on the tac map? Also were you close enough for it to have launched weapons? I'm curious about what all is modeled now.

-Jenrick

It was marked as a kill and yes I was close enough. I've been told by Julhelm that there is a chance for a surface ship to not sink and to stay (burning) on the surface.

[stormrider_sp]

I think this is a good idea, and you're generally right in what you are saying, however there are always exceptions.

Early 80s for towed array is a little iffy for me, I think the 688s just had the TB-16 starting out (so did some of the Sturgeons) but many of the others had earlier "clip-on" types BQR-15 and -23 if I'm not mistaken, which were a step or two behind the TB-16 and came with speed restrictions (would be very interesting if the clip-on Towed array could be an inventoried item like the sonobuoys, so if you ripped it off you could choose to fit another when you enter port).

As far as the sonobouys, I'm in agreement, typically I wouldn't think that the batteries would be as strong as what a helo could put out through a dipping sonar, however what I'm most interested in when it comes to buoys is if they act like they "should" specifically if they are alternated over / under the layer and if the AI will use / has to use patterns to correctly localize a contact. My understanding is that until the electronics got a bit more sophisticated, the passive buoys were very general with little to no bearing information, so typically patterns would be dropped and signal strengths compared to localize the contact (or you could risk just dropping an active buoy if you think that the passive contact is strong enough). The point I'm trying to get across is that I don't feel that dropping one buoy which is then followed by a rain of depth charges and torpedoes really fits with realism.

Regarding the Sonobuoys and other realism issues, the thing is that there are so many shortcuts and oversimplifications in the physics engine of this game that the mere fact of inputing real data won't necessarily give the expected real results.

In this specific case of a dipping sonar being stronger than a sonobuoy, the dipping sonar is also affected strongly by a perpendicular radiated noise coming from the host platform, the helicopter, while the sonobuoy enjoys a lower ambient noise and interference. Now, is the helicopter noise simulated? Is any noise even properly simulated*?!

http://i.imgur.com/JwZsCfn.jpg

Driving a submarine in 3d as you would in a Flight sim is really enjoyable, but there's just not too much of subsim in this game yet. I really hope that the devs will find ways to include old hardcore subsimmers in their public, cause, for me, there's really not much in there. For me the sole fact that soviet ssns start any scenario already pinging is already a show stopper.

[Haukka81]

I agree, AI subs should not ping least if they are not allready detected or under attack.

Sub vs Sub should be 99% passive hide and seek !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nippelspanner]

Driving a submarine in 3d as you would in a Flight sim is really enjoyable, but there's just not too much of subsim in this game yet. I really hope that the devs will find ways to include old hardcore subsimmers in their public, cause, for me, there's really not much in there. For me the sole fact that soviet ssns start any scenario already pinging is already a show stopper.

Can I give you a hug?

Because you spoke with my Heart on your tongue, really.
Let me give you a hug.

Where are you going.
Stop.
STOP!

HUG ME! :(

[RushTheBus]

I'm not sure how your playing but more often than not soviet SSNs don't ping me until I'm ether close and they detect launch transients or they ping when the mk48 is coming in for the kill.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Driving a submarine in 3d as you would in a Flight sim is really enjoyable, but there's just not too much of subsim in this game yet. I really hope that the devs will find ways to include old hardcore subsimmers in their public, cause, for me, there's really not much in there. For me the sole fact that soviet ssns start any scenario already pinging is already a show stopper.

I'll actually disagree. Having played DW, SC and 688 before moving to this, I find myself actually being much more of a submariner and concentrating much harder with this game than in the sims. I am actually sneaking around, desperately checking my counterdetection margin and clearing datum trying to dodge those Super-Silexes.

Though nominally the first three are sims, I actually play them in a much more "gamey" fashion. I would use flank speed a lot, run at flank speed 5 feet above the ocean floor, use active just because I'm impatient for the TMA, compensate for bad solutions by "flying" my torpedoes because a lot of the time the sim lets you get away with this stuff. Even if they flip a torpedo at you, they are relatively easy to dodge. The sim just doesn't punish you very hard. Now I am being punished for the smallest indiscretions.

The Soviet SSNs don't often ping in my experience at the start, though they do ping in mid-combat. Personally, I interpret this as them having gotten a whiff of me and immediately deciding to sanitize the closest 10000 or so yards to them. Anyway, the truth is that you generally have a counterdetection advantage, so if you don't let them ping you are basically asking them to be lambs versus your new, superior Los Angeles class sub.

[Monkie]

Please allow me to vent a second:

The steam forums are full of people whining and crying that it doesn't feel like a subsim because of the controls. Now I come here and see that true subsim fans are trying to better the game with productive conversation, which is great.

If you feel the game is broken, unrealistic, etc that is wonderful, but why would you try to derail a thread that is doing it's best to move forward and make the game better?

You seriously think a couple of developers can create a sonar simulation so accurate that it's simulates the blade-wash off a hovering ASW helicopter?

If you feel it's silly because it doesn't have a multi-million dollar sonar simulation then relax, and wait another decade and hopefully somebody will create that simulator for you. Maybe the USN will sell you it's old software by then.

Now I hope this thread goes back to those who I'm sure will make the game even more enjoyable for the community wanting a bit more realism.

[PL_Harpoon]

I think expecting CW to accurately simulate every aspect is is just misinterpreting the game. It's about making tactical/strategic decisions as a captain of a nuclear sub.

For example, I'm sure the captain does need to know how the sound moves through water, so he can give orders to optimize detection, if needed. But he doesn't need to know every detail of it.
And so the game doesn't need to simulate stuff that wouldn't affect the captain's decisions.

Right now we can change sensitivity for different sensors, weapon parameters and ship data. All that's left is to find values that give results as close to real ones as possible.
And I agree with Stormrider_sp, that putting real data will get us closer to realism. If a non-real value will give real result that's fine by me. We'll put that one and enjoy the game.
The biggest problem with that is that there is very little actual data on the subject. We can't say, for example, with fill certainty, how far away should a Soviet sonar buoy detect a LA class sub sailing at 5kn in calm weather. That's why I made this thread. So that we can get some sort of consensus on what things need changing and which values would give more realistic results.

So far the thing that most of us seems to agree is that weapons need more punch.

[The Bandit]

I agree, AI subs should not ping least if they are not allready detected or under attack.

Sub vs Sub should be 99% passive hide and seek !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're overlooking soviet doctrine here. Until very late in 70s the soviets had a pretty stark disadvantage when it came to quieting, sonar and electronics. While they closed much of the gap starting with the Victor III and later Akula, prior to these being available they relied on using active sonar much more than US subs ever did.

[PL_Harpoon]

You're overlooking soviet doctrine here. Until very late in 70s the soviets had a pretty stark disadvantage when it came to quieting, sonar and electronics. While they closed much of the gap starting with the Victor III and later Akula, prior to these being available they relied on using active sonar much more than US subs ever did.

Actually, that's somewhat reflected in the game. I sometimes encounter Novembers and Victor I's pinging away, but most of the time when facing Victor III or Sierra subs they stay silent. It doesn't make much difference as you'll find them first anyway (unless you're running at some higher speeds).

[Nippelspanner]

...but why would you try to derail a thread that is doing it's best to move forward and make the game better?
This is a discussion thread for a potential realism mod.
To understand what might need to be modified, it is paramount to understand and acquire what is missing, needs fixing or adjustment.
To do so, everyone may add his 2 cents.

You are complaining about people talking Bananas on the Chiquita forums.

[The Bandit]

Actually, that's somewhat reflected in the game. I sometimes encounter Novembers and Victor I's pinging away, but most of the time when facing Victor III or Sierra subs they stay silent. It doesn't make much difference as you'll find them first anyway (unless you're running at some higher speeds).

Yeah that's what I'm pointing out. The notion that some others have posted on here that enemy subs using active sonar is unrealistic is flat-out wrong.

[Nippelspanner]

Yeah that's what I'm pointing out. The notion that some others have posted on here that enemy subs using active sonar is unrealistic is flat-out wrong.
True.
But all the god damn time/in every battle/before/after detection?
Sorry but besides this being very hard to believe, it also sucks from a gameplay perspective.

[PL_Harpoon]

True.
But all the god damn time/in every battle/before/after detection?
Sorry but besides this being very hard to believe, it also sucks from a gameplay perspective.

Actually, from my experience it all depends on their current mission.
For example:

If they're hunting for you they will be pinging and I can understand why (I'll explain later).

On the other hand, if they're on escort mission (doesn't matter if it's a boomer they're escorting or a convoy) they'll stay silent until someone picks you up.
They also keep silent when patrolling ports.

Now, back to why I think their pinging is ok.
Imagine that you are a Soviet captain, and your task is to find a US attack sub. You know that it's stealthier and you know it has better passive sonar (the Soviets weren't stupid). So, if you stay quiet the only chance of detecting them first is if they make a mistake and run at high speed. On the other hand, if you'll use active sonar, sure, they'll find you first, but you also greatly negate the chance of them surprising you. Also, active sonar might give you that quick precise solution they might not have.

I'm saying that because I noticed while playing CW that it's much easier to get in the baffles of enemy who's staying quiet than one who's actively pinging. They also like to use tactic where one sub will use it's active sonar and another will creep behind.

[jenrick]

Nippelspanner:

Let's just say that a soviet sub madly pinging away 50% of every hour is absolute 100% real world accurate (this is merely a thought exercise I'm not saying that is or is not accurate). Would you want CW to simulate that? If the answer is yes, then this becomes a questions of who has sources to prove what approach is correct.

If you do not want CW to simulate that, then what would you like it to do and why? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'm curious.

-Jenrick

[Julhelm]

Well, you can just read up on the USS Lapon trailing that Yankee for 47 days, and the Yankee kept pinging away happily with his active sonar, which helped the Lapon regain contact on several occasions.

[stormrider_sp]

Well, you can just read up on the USS Lapon trailing that Yankee for 47 days, and the Yankee kept pinging away happily with his active sonar, which helped the Lapon regain contact on several occasions.

For those who don't know, Captain Whitey Mack was tailing that Yankee for 47 days, and somehow during the patrol the information was leaked to the media, also reaching the Soviets who alerted the Yankee captain that he was being tailed by an american ssn. That should explain his pinging.

Hope you're not basing your AI on this occasion alone...:haha:

[The Bandit]

Actually, from my experience it all depends on their current mission.
For example:

If they're hunting for you they will be pinging and I can understand why (I'll explain later).

On the other hand, if they're on escort mission (doesn't matter if it's a boomer they're escorting or a convoy) they'll stay silent until someone picks you up.
They also keep silent when patrolling ports.

Now, back to why I think their pinging is ok.
Imagine that you are a Soviet captain, and your task is to find a US attack sub. You know that it's stealthier and you know it has better passive sonar (the Soviets weren't stupid). So, if you stay quiet the only chance of detecting them first is if they make a mistake and run at high speed. On the other hand, if you'll use active sonar, sure, they'll find you first, but you also greatly negate the chance of them surprising you. Also, active sonar might give you that quick precise solution they might not have.

I'm saying that because I noticed while playing CW that it's much easier to get in the baffles of enemy who's staying quiet than one who's actively pinging. They also like to use tactic where one sub will use it's active sonar and another will creep behind.

Exactly, as long as they were smart about it, using active sonar was a winning proposition for most soviet sub drivers. In exchange for giving up your position (which you're gambling is already known, or at least known to a certain degree by the Americans, don't forget that the Soviets for the most part had a very good idea of what SOSUS was even before Johnny Walker, all those cable-laying ships weren't going out in the mid-Atlantic just to catch some sun) you're going to gain (assuming they are in range) the location of the American sub which otherwise would be nearly impossible to get using passive.

One last thing that should not be forgotten is TMA. While it did get easier as sensor and computer quality improved TMA (i.e. using passive signal analysis to determine course and distance) was never easy even for American boats. While things did get better for the Russians starting around the Victor IIs, the Soviets were also almost always behind the curve in computer tech as well so in many cases they didn't have anything in the same ball-park as the Mk117 fire control system, which again meant that working out a firing solution based off of passive data was a very long shot at best, compared to what a single active ping could get you.

[Nippelspanner]

Nippelspanner:

Let's just say that a soviet sub madly pinging away 50% of every hour is absolute 100% real world accurate (this is merely a thought exercise I'm not saying that is or is not accurate). Would you want CW to simulate that? If the answer is yes, then this becomes a questions of who has sources to prove what approach is correct.

If you do not want CW to simulate that, then what would you like it to do and why? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'm curious.

-Jenrick
In the end, I'll always sign in with realism.

While I heard Russians went active more often, I just cannot possibly imagine they did so all the time. Especially submarines. It just defeats their whole purpose, we all know going active is but a huge flashlight in the dark.
On top, active sonar technology wasn't that great during that time either, so it's not like a magic "unveal all" button anyways - but it sure is a reliable way to let anyone with "ears" know you are on that exact bearing.
How is this an "advantage"?

No, sorry, don't buy it one bit.

[ChaosDuck7]

IIRC according to what a dev in discord said, the "under the hood" simulation of this game (im assuming things like sonar and stuff) is much more realistic than the silent hunter series.


Can a dev confirm?

[Nippelspanner]

IIRC according to what a dev in discord said, the "under the hood" simulation of this game (im assuming things like sonar and stuff) is much more realistic than the silent hunter series.


Can a dev confirm?
Sorry but that's like saying "we're proud to say our automobile can go faster than a bicycle!".

Even if CW would model everything sonar 100% true to life... so what?
The rest of the game is lacking, in many areas, and that's the problem.

Go play some "Fast Attack" from the nineties.
Probably the best (modern) subsim ever made in terms of authenticity/overall quality, with (near) perfect gameplay.
Julhelm said CW was "heavily inspired" by Fast Attack.
Honestly, I do not see that at all.
Not one bit. :-?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Sorry but that's like saying "we're proud to say our automobile can go faster than a bicycle!".

Even if CW would model everything sonar 100% true to life... so what?
The rest of the game is lacking, in many areas, and that's the problem.

Go play some "Fast Attack" from the nineties.
Probably the best (modern) subsim ever made in terms of authenticity/overall quality, with (near) perfect gameplay.
Julhelm said CW was "heavily inspired" by Fast Attack.
Honestly, I do not see that at all.
Not one bit. :-?

I hadn't played Fast Attack, so I can't compare, but you hadn't been very specific about your complaints (at least on this thread) other than the pinging thing, and I think it is invalid.

On the realism front, you argue that they shouldn't be pinging without some provocation. But in the meta of the game, you will almost always have provoked them. In the campaign map, the most common thing you are doing is hurtling through the water at a SoA of 26 knots (by default the Primary Mouse button is used). Presumably, you weren't actually doing a steady 26 knots - otherwise the scenario screen would start with "We have detected a torpedo in the water, bearing ...". You were doing a sprint-and-drift and in one of the drifts you managed to pick up the contact, but all that means is that you were even faster during your sprints.

Even your patrol speed (the second most common scenario) of 10 knots is likely composed of a series of sprints and drifts. Really, you did not provoke them? Even if you managed to set an ambush ... not only is that only the 3rd most common scenario, but if you thought this is a great ambush position, why can't the enemy be allowed that intelligence?

So in the very vast majority of scenarios, it is at least plausible the enemy suspects you are in the area and the decision to make the AI act like it is the optimal choice.

[Julhelm]

Fast Attack has near perfect gameplay if you're a hardcore sub nut passionate about the subject matter. If you're not, the interface is too cumbersome and the combat too abstract, and that's why it ultimately failed commercially. It's still better than any Sonalysts sim, but DW ultimately failed to perform as well which is why noone has touched nuclear subs in over a decade.

I would love to do Fast Attack w/ dynamic campaign and SH5-like 3D models, but a self-funded 2-man studio like ours just don't have the economic resources or the manpower to pull that off from scratch. We have to do the best with what we have. It's that simple.

[PL_Harpoon]

In the end, I'll always sign in with realism.

While I heard Russians went active more often, I just cannot possibly imagine they did so all the time. Especially submarines. It just defeats their whole purpose, we all know going active is but a huge flashlight in the dark.
On top, active sonar technology wasn't that great during that time either, so it's not like a magic "unveal all" button anyways - but it sure is a reliable way to let anyone with "ears" know you are on that exact bearing.
How is this an "advantage"?

No, sorry, don't buy it one bit.


So, what would your do if you were, say, a captain of a Soviet Victor I sub tasked with finding and killing an LA class submarine?

[Nippelspanner]

I hadn't played Fast Attack, so I can't compare, but you hadn't been very specific about your complaints (at least on this thread) other than the pinging thing, and I think it is invalid.

On the realism front, you argue that they shouldn't be pinging without some provocation.
No. I did not say that.
I said I doubt the doctrine was to ping away all/most of the time. I didn't say anything else.


But in the meta of the game, you will almost always have provoked them.
Assumptions how I play the game don't help here, especially if they are wrong.
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.

[Nippelspanner]

So, what would your do if you were, say, a captain of a Soviet Victor I sub tasked with finding and killing an LA class submarine?

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.

I would use active sonar only if I know something is out there and is in range of my weapons.
What point does it make to shoot a Russian fish after some Los Angeles class sub that can easily evade/outrun it at distance while being able to shoot back 4 of the best torpedoes of that Era?

It's suicide.

[stormrider_sp]

Fast Attack has near perfect gameplay if you're a hardcore sub nut passionate about the subject matter. If you're not, the interface is too cumbersome and the combat too abstract, and that's why it ultimately failed commercially. It's still better than any Sonalysts sim, but DW ultimately failed to perform as well which is why noone has touched nuclear subs in over a decade.

I would love to do Fast Attack w/ dynamic campaign and SH5-like 3D models, but a self-funded 2-man studio like ours just don't have the economic resources or the manpower to pull that off from scratch. We have to do the best with what we have. It's that simple.

What do you mean Sonalysts failed to perform, what are you talking about? We had more than 10 full sub squadrons in our Seawolves fleet back in the days. One could find multiplayer anytime of the day as he wished. Honestly, I don't recall any community as alive as Seawolves during her prime years... What sonalysts failed to do was to bring its simulator up to date, in line with new gaming technologies, but even then, 20 years after, under the hood its still far superior to CW. Even commercially, if that's your point, I doubt that there would even had been follow ups like Fleet Command, SC and DW if it wasnt for 688i HK's commercial sucess alone.

I wouldn't mind having a Fast Attack 2 sim without any fancy dynamic campaing. A moddable modern fast attack, with 3d interiors, proper physics and crew management with good map and scenario editor and I'd be once again a happy subsimmer for at least a another decade.

[Nippelspanner]

.

I wouldn't mind having a Fast Attack 2 sim without any fancy dynamic campaing. A moddable modern fast attack, with 3d interiors, proper physics and crew management with good map and scenario editor and I'd be once again a happy subsimmer for at least a another decade.

That.
Also, the "dynamic campaign" of cw doesn't really cut it for me. I can't say why but there's just something missing and while it may be dynamic, it still is the same again and again.

Meanwhile I re-played the RSR campaign for dangerous waters multiple times.

[Julhelm]

What do you mean Sonalysts failed to perform, what are you talking about? We had more than 10 full sub squadrons in our Seawolves fleet back in the days. One could find multiplayer anytime of the day as he wished. Honestly, I don't recall any community as alive as Seawolves during her prime years... What sonalysts failed to do was to bring its simulator up to date, in line with new gaming technologies, but even then, 20 years after, under the hood its still far superior to CW. Even commercially, if that's your point, I doubt that there would even had been follow ups like Fleet Command, SC and DW if it wasnt for 688i HK's commercial sucess alone.

I wouldn't mind having a Fast Attack 2 sim without any fancy dynamic campaing. A moddable modern fast attack, with 3d interiors, proper physics and crew management with good map and scenario editor and I'd be once again a happy subsimmer for at least a another decade.
Commercially, of course. The reason Sonalysts haven't made any new sims is because DW failed to meet sales expectations. Had it been a profitable venture, they would still be here. But they have not made a new game in over 10 years.

You sound like you would rather be playing DW, so why are you here complaining about our game when we've always been up front with the fact it's not like DW, nor was it ever intended to be. If DW is what you want to play...

...play DW.

[Nippelspanner]

You sound like you would rather be playing DW, so why are you here complaining about our game when we've always been up front with the fact it's not like DW, nor was it ever intended to be. If DW is what you want to play...

...play DW.
Well, I might be off, but I don't think he expected it to be DW at all, that much is clear from his previews posts. However, washing away any critic with "go play DW", is not leading anywhere either.

CW has a lot of potential, and the first patch already fixed a lot of leaks it had, while the beta patch 1.02 reads promising as well.
The upcoming new GUI and crew sounds will also make a big difference (for me!) and if you continue to develop this title for a while, as you do now, I am quite content that CW can be come what many more hardcore simmers hoped for, as of now, it absolutely is not what I'd call a "simulation"
(subjective term anyways, sure).

[PL_Harpoon]

Hope the US commander has a bad day, hope the odds are somehow in my favor?

You'll agree that's not a very good tactic, right? ;)


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.

I would use active sonar only if I know something is out there and is in range of my weapons.
What point does it make to shoot a Russian fish after some Los Angeles class sub that can easily evade/outrun it at distance while being able to shoot back 4 of the best torpedoes of that Era?

It's suicide.

I'm not defending this tactic just because I like the game. If I feel like something needs fixing, like for ex. insertion and land strike missions which are currently not only unrealistic but just straight up broken I won't try to defend them.

It's just that after playing the game I found it harder to fight against enemy subs which are using active sonar to find me than those that are just "silently" strolling around. I have no problems getting in their baffles, and from there it's pretty much game over for them.

Keep in mind that the encounter with enemy sub in CW starts at about 10-15km. So, my reasoning is, they picked you up while cruising at 10-25 knots, and now that you are within the reach of their torpedoes they start pinging.
Given that they happily use ASW missile-torpedoes it seems like a valid option.

EDIT:

BTW. Out of all the people complaining about it still no one has proposed a better tactic.

[Nippelspanner]

You'll agree that's not a very good tactic, right? ;)
Oh definitely, but that's pretty much the only thing one could do in that specific scenario, good tactic or not.


I'm not defending this tactic just because I like the game. If I feel like something needs fixing, like for ex. insertion and land strike missions which are currently not only unrealistic but just straight up broken I won't try to defend them.
Yeah I hope they completely re-write these missions asap, I was mad like Hell first time I had to insert SEALs. I was looking forward to a very different mission, and later found myself in a ridiculous Michael Bay movie.


It's just that after playing the game I found it harder to fight against enemy subs which are using active sonar to find me than those that are just "silently" strolling around. I have no problems getting in their baffles, and from there it's pretty much game over for them.
Hehe, you really go for their baffles? Why? Are you bored? :)
Because it isn't necessary at all.

I just send a fish or two down their bearing, activating them early, waiting for a very, very high chance to actually score a kill - unlike in a submarine simulation (FA, DW, ...) where this will most likely never be enough to score a kill as enemy subs actually evade torpedoes.
In CW, they just do some half-assed attempts from what I've gathered.


Keep in mind that the encounter with enemy sub in CW starts at about 10-15km. So, my reasoning is, they picked you up while cruising at 10-25 knots, and now that you are within the reach of their torpedoes they start pinging.
Given that they happily use ASW missile-torpedoes it seems like a valid tactic.
I really got used to ambush any target if possible, and since recon is mostly pretty good, it is possible in 9/10 of my encounters, meaning I am at 5kts - and I doubt something gave away my presence in these situations.

Ultimately, by now I love to go against subs, because I know I'm in for some dirt-cheap kills.
And I wonder if that's how it should be. :hmmm:

[stormrider_sp]

Commercially, of course. The reason Sonalysts haven't made any new sims is because DW failed to meet sales expectations. Had it been a profitable venture, they would still be here. But they have not made a new game in over 10 years.

You sound like you would rather be playing DW, so why are you here complaining about our game when we've always been up front with the fact it's not like DW, nor was it ever intended to be. If DW is what you want to play...

...play DW.

You know, you keep pushing this "not-DW-stance", but since CW was at least meant to be a subsim, as a subsim it shall be judged.
:subsim:

Title: Cold Waters
Genre: Indie, Simulation, Strategy
Developer: Killerfish Games
Publisher: Killerfish Games
Release Date: 5 Jun, 2017

[Nippelspanner]

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

Seconds later, the pinging started.
Oh hello there!
Fired tube 1 down the bearing I just received from the ping.
Kill.
No serious evasive actions besides altering course slightly, and cavitating for a brief moment, before slowing down again, not moving out of the torpedoes arc at all.

The Victor III started pinging me after the engagement with the Victor I was over. Until then, it stayed silent - and undetected!

Same story.
Ping received -> Mk48 send.
Hit and heavily damaged, forced it to surface (a nice detail!).

But then the usual lackluster AI hilarity ensued.
It drove around aimlessly and soon started to ping again and even cavitate,
giving me a 95% solution.
Fish away -> kill.


Number of enemy torpedoes fired: 0

And that, I see a lot. :hmmm:

[PL_Harpoon]

Hehe, you really go for their baffles? Why? Are you bored? :)
Because it isn't necessary at all.

Yes, but it's more fun :)

In CW, they just do some half-assed attempts from what I've gathered.

I agree 100%. I already wrote in some other topic that AI torpedo evasion is currently bad. Right now MK48's are pretty much fire-and-forget weapons.

I really got used to ambush any target if possible, and since recon is mostly pretty good, it is possible in 9/10 of my encounters, meaning I am at 5kts - and I doubt something gave away my presence in these situations.

Ultimately, by now I love to go against subs, because I know I'm in for some dirt-cheap kills.
And I wonder if that's how it should be. :hmmm:
Also agree. The thing is, it doesn't really matters if they're pinging or not.

Now, to get back on topic (stuff that we already can change ourselves), I'm already working on a couple of tweaks to if not fix then at least to improve some of those issues. I think in a day or two it will be ready for you guys to test.

[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]

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.

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.

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.

[Nippelspanner]

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!" :doh:

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.

[Nippelspanner]

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.


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.


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.



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.


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?


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]

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).

[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.

[The Bandit]

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

[Lanzfeld]

"Please work on the AI.

All it has to go on is one active ping and sends a torpedo in that direction, fair enough. What is not OK is the AI from that point on knowing exactly which direction you are heading, in real time, and correct the torpedo on every turn you make. Check this by modifying "SelfNoise" and "ActiveSonarReflection" to a very low number so there is no way you are detected through that, do active pinging until they launch, then go silent and deep. See the same with surface ships responding to a torpedo arriving, and from that knowing exactly where you are even tho you made a full 180 after launching them.
Seems to me like the AI knows exactly where you are but the devs have thrown in some randomizing on depth and distance until they have a more accurate sonar reading, in order for it to seem more legitimate. Problem is in the cases I've seen, they should have no reading to go on at all."

All of the above I copied this from another thread. If this is true I believe this should be addressed as soon as possible. I cannot stand it when the AI cheats in a game. Especially a simulator.

[Julhelm]

It doesn't cheat. The AI uses the same TMA and sensor algorithms as the player and generally shoots only on an >85% solution. What happens when they ping you is the same that happens when you ping them - if above the detection threshold, the solution % climbs rapidly, then each successive ping maintains it.

Enemy subs can launch wireguided torpedoes as well, and they will resteer them providing they have a >85% solution on you and can track you, just like you can.

[Lanzfeld]

Very good to know Julhelm and thank you for speaking up on the falsehood of this rumor.
I am glad I used the word "if" in my original concern

[Haukka81]

It doesn't cheat. The AI uses the same TMA and sensor algorithms as the player and generally shoots only on an >85% solution. What happens when they ping you is the same that happens when you ping them - if above the detection threshold, the solution % climbs rapidly, then each successive ping maintains it.

Enemy subs can launch wireguided torpedoes as well, and they will resteer them providing they have a >85% solution on you and can track you, just like you can.

Maybe max "spawn" distance should be more when mission starts (least option to have say about 50, 25 is bit low) , now its easy to player to just shoot snap shot active torpedos because Ai can't run away. And then player would lost first contact more easily. :hmmm:

[Julhelm]

It likely is the Mk48 being OP. We used the 4000 yard sensor range quoted by Friedman, but some other sources say 1600 yards. Also it may not be noisy enough on its run-out. No figures are available so we had to guesstimate something that seemed reasonable.

[VizlaN]

It doesn't cheat. The AI uses the same TMA and sensor algorithms as the player and generally shoots only on an >85% solution. What happens when they ping you is the same that happens when you ping them - if above the detection threshold, the solution % climbs rapidly, then each successive ping maintains it.

Enemy subs can launch wireguided torpedoes as well, and they will resteer them providing they have a >85% solution on you and can track you, just like you can.
Yes, active pinging gives them your solution which is the point. You then go silent after launch and watch the SNS COMP on passive drop to -30 or below, yet the torpedo keeps tracking by wire for several minutes. Why is that?

[jenrick]

Maybe max "spawn" distance should be more when mission starts (least option to have say about 50, 25 is bit low) , now its easy to player to just shoot snap shot active torpedos because Ai can't run away. And then player would lost first contact more easily.

My only concern here, is that we don't have any tools to help with the search. I have no clue how well or poorly the sonar is working at a given depth, and there's really no option but head in the direction of the last contact and do circles. I'm not advocating for a full DW type sonar experience, but I think it would take something else (not sure what) to make it work (for me at least).

-Jenrick

[Julhelm]

Yes, active pinging gives them your solution which is the point. You then go silent after launch and watch the SNS COMP on passive drop to -30 or below, yet the torpedo keeps tracking by wire for several minutes. Why is that?
Don't know. I have to ask the programmer about it. Doesn't sound right.

[VizlaN]

Don't know. I have to ask the programmer about it. Doesn't sound right.

SelfNoise+ActiveSonarReflection set to 1 and modified an added sonar(Los Angeles Flt II/III VLS mod) to keep him detected as much as possible.
https://youtu.be/omhM4vjxRf8

[Julhelm]

Well that does look suspect. I'll forward the video.

[Lanzfeld]

Thank you! Let's at least start at the baseline of the AI not cheating please

[PL_Harpoon]

Ok guys. Here's the first version of "realism" mod.

Changes:

Campaign:
- reduced recon ranges - planes will pretty much detect only what's below them, satelites have a slightly bigger range but still half of what they had
- time 2x slower - that's just my personal preference
- bonus: Nato icons for the map - with the exception of satelites and airplanes, because in the game they rotate to face direction they're going


Movement:
- largely increased angular momentum for LA class sub (for testing) - the subs in CW feel a bit too weightless and responsive when it comes to turning. With this on they resemble behaviour from DW. It takes some time before the boat will start rotating and it will also take some time for it to stop. It's also more difficult to dodge torpedoes, but on the flip side, requires even more attention from the player. Right now only works for LA.

Sensors:
- MAD detection range reduced to 400 - even 1000 seemed to much for me
- Sonobuoys passive sensitivity reduced to 25 - I believe they were not as strong as BQQ-5.
- Dipping sonar sensitivity increased to 32 - I think the default 26 was a bit too weak
- decreased TMA rate for player and AI to 0.7 - before you could obtain a perfect TMA solutions very quickly. Now you'll have to work for them (change course, use ECM, etc.)

Weapons:
- increased warheads for all torpedoes and missiles - if known I used real tnt equivalent, if not I multiplied real warhead sizes by 1.8 (tnt ratio of Mk48 warhead materials) for later weapons and 1.3 (tnt ratio of Mk37 warhead materials) for earlier
- decreased acquisition range for Mark 48 to 1600. - based on a few sources on the internet - now it requires a proper solution or a bit of luck
- decreased sensor angle for Mark 48 to 60. - I think 80 was a bit too much
- increased acquisition range for Test-71 to 1500. - again, based on some internet sources
- decreased lifetime for knuckles to 3
- decreased noise (effectivnes) for knuckles to 50 - I think knuckles are a bit OP currently. With this mod they stay for very short time and work only when a torpedo is very close

Other:
- decreased player hull strength to 0.65 - to reflect single hull constructions - now most torpedoes will kill you
- increased AI hull strength to 1.25 - to reflect double hull. Takes 3 torps to sing a Typhoon, but for any other sub it's still pretty much 1 hit-kill.
- increased combat repair time to 2.5 - they felt too fast for me

Using MekStark's low underwater visibility mod.

One important thing: play it on HARD. On other some changes won't work.

Link: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5SxzQiHG6vKN2o4WDRIY1B0NHM

[Haukka81]

Lots of good stuff in your latest version. Hope that devs will take some of this to vanilla :)

[Nimmo55]

Thanks PL-Harpoon. Very much appreciated. It's one of the reasons I bought with confidence: the talented modders increasing the realism of the simulation.

Apoll

[Stardog765]

Great job!

I am patiently waiting to play much until the helm stuff gets put in but I will be using this mod for sure.

Thanks for your effort.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Ok guys. Here's the first version of "realism" mod.

I don't want to be a party-pooper, but based on this list, I don't think I'll be using your mod. Of course, it is a personal choice to just not use it, but I feel I should list out my reasoning for your consideration (and perhaps the designer's consideration should he feel like incorporating some of them):

- reduced recon ranges - planes will pretty much detect only what's below them, satelites have a slightly bigger range but still half of what they had
- time 2x slower - that's just my personal preference
- bonus: Nato icons for the map - with the exception of satelites and airplanes, because in the game they rotate to face direction they're going
- Dipping sonar sensitivity increased to 32 - I think the default 26 was a bit too weak
- decreased TMA rate for player and AI to 0.7 - before you could obtain a perfect TMA solutions very quickly. Now you'll have to work for them (change course, use ECM, etc.)

These at least sound like OK to good changes.

- largely increased angular momentum for LA class sub (for testing) - the subs in CW feel a bit too weightless and responsive when it comes to turning. With this on they resemble behaviour from DW. It takes some time before the boat will start rotating and it will also take some time for it to stop. It's also more difficult to dodge torpedoes, but on the flip side, requires even more attention from the player. Right now only works for LA.
- decreased lifetime for knuckles to 3
- decreased noise (effectivnes) for knuckles to 50 - I think knuckles are a bit OP currently. With this mod they stay for very short time and work only when a torpedo is very close

What you are basically doing here is drastically degrading the torpedo evasion dynamics of the sub. I don't know which behavior is "closer to reality", BUT from a gameplay perspective, you might want to consider that DW is centered around automatic control of your sub while CW is around manual control.

Further, compared to DW, the torpedoes feel much more persistent if you didn't get out of their acquisition cones - you are basically twisting and turning, buying time until they run out of fuel, while in DW once you've decoyed them you are done. You also get infinite decoys in DW at the rate of 2 every 30 or so seconds (you can even set them Deep or Shallow) - few would even bother with knuckles (in essence free noisemakers) in DW even if DW lets the player have them.

- MAD detection range reduced to 400 - even 1000 seemed to much for me
- Sonobuoys passive sensitivity reduced to 25 - I believe they were not as strong as BQQ-5.

These sound like realistic changes. My concern is whether the AI can adapt to these alterations. I mean, you are a professional ASW flier, and someone just quietly swapped out your kit for degraded versions without informing you, do you think you might for example use the old intervals, leaving huge gaps in your sonobuoy fields and MAD sweeps?

- increased warheads for all torpedoes and missiles - if known I used real tnt equivalent, if not I multiplied real warhead sizes by 1.8 (tnt ratio of Mk48 warhead materials) for later weapons and 1.3 (tnt ratio of Mk37 warhead materials) for earlier

This may or may not make it more "realistic" overall, but even if it technically is, there's a distinction to be made between the game being technically realistic and its ability to promote "realistic" behavior on the part of the player.

As I understand it, the game started out with values close to your values, but then had its torpedoes nerfed in response to user feedback. Then people started noticing they weren't "one-shotting" cruisers like they used to, and they opened the gamefiles and decided the new warhead value was less than the "realistic" value and we are changing things so we can one-shot cruisers again, justified by the idea that this is the "realistic" result...

OK ... but my thinking is if you are in the real sub, against a cruiser you would use at least two torpedoes considering its value, the need to guarantee a kill ... etc, wouldn't you? The real reason you are even thinking of one torpedo is because this is a game, you are not actually in danger, so if the game lets you get away with it you will use one torpedo. In short, the supposedly less technically accurate value motivates more realistic behavior, and the more accurate one makes people want to game the system and even use "magic" to change reality so they can do gamey things.

And one has to make a choice - if you can't have both which is more important - technical accuracy or substantive accuracy?

- decreased acquisition range for Mark 48 to 1600. - based on a few sources on the internet - now it requires a proper solution or a bit of luck
- decreased sensor angle for Mark 48 to 60. - I think 80 was a bit too much
- increased acquisition range for Test-71 to 1500. - again, based on some internet sources

From a realism standpoint, you've just said that the Mark 48 with all its new-generation seeker is only an incremental improvement over the Mark 37, plus is only insignificantly better than the TEST-71 which is older and from a less advanced electronics base. The "strongest" torpedo is now the USET-80 with 3000m acquisition. Is that what you want?

Further, from a gameplay perspective I understand the desire to suppress behavior like just firing snapshots immediately on sonar pings with expectation of high kill probability. However, it must be noted that wires in this game break a lot - I think 25-50% of my torps lose their wires. Though it is annoying, it does motivate you to set the torp up properly rather than just flinging it out and counting on fixing things with the wire guidance - another case of CW promoting realistic behavior. On the other hand, the torpedo does not get nearly as much assist from the wire-guidance as it should, so do you want to add another nerf?

[elrond petit pas tapons]

Thx, i'm gonna give it a try !

[PL_Harpoon]

I don't want to be a party-pooper, but based on this list, I don't think I'll be using your mod. Of course, it is a personal choice to just not use it, but I feel I should list out my reasoning for your consideration (and perhaps the designer's consideration should he feel like incorporating some of them):

That's perfectly fine. This is just a test version so that you can give more feedback.


What you are basically doing here is drastically degrading the torpedo evasion dynamics of the sub. I don't know which behavior is "closer to reality", BUT from a gameplay perspective, you might want to consider that DW is centered around automatic control of your sub while CW is around manual control.

Further, compared to DW, the torpedoes feel much more persistent if you didn't get out of their acquisition cones - you are basically twisting and turning, buying time until they run out of fuel, while in DW once you've decoyed them you are done. You also get infinite decoys in DW at the rate of 2 every 30 or so seconds (you can even set them Deep or Shallow) - few would even bother with knuckles (in essence free noisemakers) in DW even if DW lets the player have them.

Ok, let me explain. From what I've tested unlike diving which has proper momentum, turning of the ship is just linked to rudder angle. So, even at full speed going from full 30 deg turn to straight takes as much time as it takes for the rudder to centre. That I think is wrong. So, I significantly reduced the rudder speed (perhaps too much) and increased turn rate to compensate. In the game it means you need to use lesser angles more and if you do a full rudder turn you have to commit to it (as it will probably mean changing the course of at least 90 degrees). You can still use the same evasion methods as before.
Now, about the knuckles. I nerfed them simply because in vanilla they felt like free noisemakers, especially in LA subs (where all it takes to create a knuckle is to do a hard turn at flank speed). Now, they are still effective but only at close range.

These sound like realistic changes. My concern is whether the AI can adapt to these alterations. I mean, you are a professional ASW flier, and someone just quietly swapped out your kit for degraded versions without informing you, do you think you might for example use the old intervals, leaving huge gaps in your sonobuoy fields and MAD sweeps?

Honestly, this requires some more testing. I know for a fact that helis are still dangerous although it is now possible to shake them off by running deep and silent and changing course.


This may or may not make it more "realistic" overall, but even if it technically is, there's a distinction to be made between the game being technically realistic and its ability to promote "realistic" behavior on the part of the player.

As I understand it, the game started out with values close to your values, but then had its torpedoes nerfed in response to user feedback. Then people started noticing they weren't "one-shotting" cruisers like they used to, and they opened the gamefiles and decided the new warhead value was less than the "realistic" value and we are changing things so we can one-shot cruisers again, justified by the idea that this is the "realistic" result...

OK ... but my thinking is if you are in the real sub, against a cruiser you would use at least two torpedoes considering its value, the need to guarantee a kill ... etc, wouldn't you? The real reason you are even thinking of one torpedo is because this is a game, you are not actually in danger, so if the game lets you get away with it you will use one torpedo. In short, the supposedly less technically accurate value motivates more realistic behavior, and the more accurate one makes people want to game the system and even use "magic" to change reality so they can do gamey things.

And one has to make a choice - if you can't have both which is more important - technical accuracy or substantive accuracy?


I agree with what you're thinking. However currently vessel's hull strength is bases on it's displacement.That means, most destroyers are as strong as subs (Sierra has 8100, Sovremenny 8480). From what I gathered, we want subs to sink after one hit, but large vessels to take more. Well, so far it took me 3 torpedoes to sink Kiev (40000t displacement) but only one to take out Sovremenny, which at least in my opinion should take two. So the question is, what's more important: sinking Sierra with one torpedo, or sinking Sovremenny with two?

From a realism standpoint, you've just said that the Mark 48 with all its new-generation seeker is only an incremental improvement over the Mark 37, plus is only insignificantly better than the TEST-71 which is older and from a less advanced electronics base. The "strongest" torpedo is now the USET-80 with 3000m acquisition. Is that what you want?

What do you mean by "new-generation seeker"? The Mark-48 in the game are not ADCAPs. Based on this data http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_PostWWII.php they're MOD4s. " Mod 4 added envelope expansion features, including increased speed and deeper diving, and a fire and forget capability." You can interpret that the torpedo can search for targets on it's own (perhaps we should add snake pattern?). Mod4s were issued around 1980, which is around the same time USET-80 came along. Also, reading that page I'm considering making Mk48s more noisy as it states that was their main drawback (currently they're as noisy as other homing torpedoes). Which leads me to this: yes, Mk-48 have comparable detection range to older SET-71, but 71s are much slower and therefore quieter. USETs have longer range (however I couldn't find any data that would prove that so perhaps it is too much) but are also slower than 48s.


Further, from a gameplay perspective I understand the desire to suppress behavior like just firing snapshots immediately on sonar pings with expectation of high kill probability. However, it must be noted that wires in this game break a lot - I think 25-50% of my torps lose their wires. Though it is annoying, it does motivate you to set the torp up properly rather than just flinging it out and counting on fixing things with the wire guidance - another case of CW promoting realistic behavior. On the other hand, the torpedo does not get nearly as much assist from the wire-guidance as it should, so do you want to add another nerf?

Yeah, I agree that wires brake a bit too much (would be great if we could be able to set break angle from ship). But if you're at 5 or 10 knots and roughly face the direction of a torpedo you can easily wire-guide it for at least 10 KYDS. And I don't agree that wire braking motivates you to setup them properly. In vanilla if I wanted a confirmed hit I just fired a torpedo to activate just as it turned on it's course. The only way it could miss is if there was a wreck between it and the target. A lot of times I just broke the wire myself to load another torp.

[Nippelspanner]

My biggest gripe with mk48 right now is the ridiculously over-sized and sensitive passive seeker, preferring to go after a wreck on the floor that's twice as far away and 90 degrees off course, it's so...gah.
No way this is authentic. No way.

[Julhelm]

Of course it's not authentic. We just went with the commonly quoted sensor range. You have to understand that all of the sensor and weapon performance data are educated guesswork because the real figures are classified.

[PL_Harpoon]

My biggest gripe with mk48 right now is the ridiculously over-sized and sensitive passive seeker, preferring to go after a wreck on the floor that's twice as far away and 90 degrees off course, it's so...gah.
No way this is authentic. No way.

You might try my mod then. It does improve that a bit.

Of course it's not authentic. We just went with the commonly quoted sensor range. You have to understand that all of the sensor and weapon performance data are educated guesswork because the real figures are classified.

So, was the acquisition range of the USET-80 derrived from some data or was it your guess based on the range of Mk48? I'm just curious, because if it's the latter I'll lower it down for my mod too.

[Nippelspanner]

Of course it's not authentic. We just went with the commonly quoted sensor range. You have to understand that all of the sensor and weapon performance data are educated guesswork because the real figures are classified.
I know that, otherwise it would mean someone is heavily violating OPSEC etc, and I doubt this is/was the case.
Anyways, I wonder why you went with such extreme values, especially after other subsims showed how it is done "right" (makes it feel right, I mean).

It is so absurd to see them going after some wreck some 90° at the horizon instead of the cavitating target 1000y in front of them, especially if the wire broke (thanks for adding the values for that in the config, really!).

[Lanzfeld]

Enjoying the mod Harpoon!

Looking forward to version 2.

No critique real yet. Just trying to "drive" the 688. Not sure if it's realistic but it feels heavy.

[PL_Harpoon]

I've started to think about overhauling torpedo noise, so I've created this simple spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-qt7vGVJ1XQSe2cdlG-SB01uXeJQ54aenD2F2fgiJX4/edit#gid=1880361556

It uses a simple equation to calculate torp noise values.

Feel free to comment/propose better solutions.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Ok, let me explain. From what I've tested unlike diving which has proper momentum, turning of the ship is just linked to rudder angle. So, even at full speed going from full 30 deg turn to straight takes as much time as it takes for the rudder to centre. That I think is wrong. So, I significantly reduced the rudder speed (perhaps too much) and increased turn rate to compensate. In the game it means you need to use lesser angles more and if you do a full rudder turn you have to commit to it (as it will probably mean changing the course of at least 90 degrees). You can still use the same evasion methods as before.

OK, that sounds more like something I can get behind. I definitely agree that it feels wierd that a 30 degree turn can center in only ~5 degrees. Maybe I'll test it when you've transformed all the subs to this configuration.

Honestly, this requires some more testing. I know for a fact that helis are still dangerous although it is now possible to shake them off by running deep and silent and changing course.

That's good to hear. Though since you've actually boosted the sensitivity of the helicopter's dipping sonar, it should continue to work just fine.

What I'm concerned most of all are the sonobuoys, because they along with the dipping sonar are unique in the game in requiring discrete search as opposed to the continuous search being undertaken by all the other ships and submarines. Discrete search (which includes sprint-and-drift) tactics are a challenge for AI because the decision of what spacing to use between the searches depends on the predicted detection range, which in turn depends on the sensitivity of the detector.

I don't know how they programmed the AI. For example, it may be a fixed formula where they drop buoys every X yards, or it may be a variable formula that takes into account the buoy's designated sensitivity. If it is the former, then the AI won't adjust its tactics to the new weakened buoys and gaps will form, making the nerf far more serious than intended.

Obviously testing is required, but can Julhelm or someone else shed any preliminary light on this topic?

sinking Sierra with one torpedo, or sinking Sovremenny with two?

I can see the dilemma. Personally, if it comes down to it, I'll agree that Sierra and above can require two torpedoes if that's the only way to ensure a Sovremenny has two torps worth of "health".

What do you mean by "new-generation seeker"? The Mark-48 in the game are not ADCAPs.

I know they aren't. But even the Mk 48 Mod 1, the first operational variant is several precious years more advanced than the Mark 37 Mod 2 at a time when computers are just being introduced and advances in sonar technology are made at a high speed. To give an idea the kind of improvements in this era, If you compare for example the 1967 MGK-300 Rubin sonar versus the 1976 MGK-400 Rubikon, the range actually triples from 60 to 200+ kilometers (obviously, they are assuming a very noisy target). In such conditions do you really think the increase over Mark 37 would only be in the order of 60%, even counting the fact it is faster?

As for 1,600m, I can see two possibilities.
1) That might have been the Mark 46 (with a much smaller and thus less capable seeker head). The FAS site seems to have ingested some Mark-46ish information, including "Min/Max ASROC launching ranges 1500 to 12000 yards" and "Run characteristics 6-8 minutes downward".
2) If it really has to do with the Mark 48, it might reflect its surface detection range. If you look at the below site, for the UGST the Russians claim 2.5km detection range against a submarine, but only 1.2km for a surface ship - presumably the surface ship range is less because so much of the ship is out of the water and the increased surface noise so near the surface. From that, we may infer that a torpedo with 4000m acquisition against submarines may plausibly be reduced to roughly 1.6km against a surface ship.
http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/naval-systems/ugst/

Of course, maybe one can argue for gameplay we should nerf the detection range anyway, but the above is my two cents on the "realism" part.

Yeah, I agree that wires brake a bit too much (would be great if we could be able to set break angle from ship). But if you're at 5 or 10 knots and roughly face the direction of a torpedo you can easily wire-guide it for at least 10 KYDS. And I don't agree that wire braking motivates you to setup them properly. In vanilla if I wanted a confirmed hit I just fired a torpedo to activate just as it turned on it's course. The only way it could miss is if there was a wreck between it and the target. A lot of times I just broke the wire myself to load another torp.

Personally, the risk of the target turning out to be very far away has been an effective deterrent against using "gamey tactics", and unfortunately, I've already lost way too many torpedoes within a minute or so of launching them to feel like "easily wire-guide it for at least 10 KYDS" is a reliable idea. In desperation I now stop after launching to try and save my torpedo wires and I consider myself lucky when the torpedo lasts long enough I get to cut the wire.

[Julhelm]

I know that, otherwise it would mean someone is heavily violating OPSEC etc, and I doubt this is/was the case.
Anyways, I wonder why you went with such extreme values, especially after other subsims showed how it is done "right" (makes it feel right, I mean).

It is so absurd to see them going after some wreck some 90° at the horizon instead of the cavitating target 1000y in front of them, especially if the wire broke (thanks for adding the values for that in the config, really!).
We went with the published official data. But there are some issues I was not aware of when I balanced the weapons. A lot of the torpedo data comes from Navweaps and USNI World Naval Weapon Systems so it's not like we randomly pull numbers from somewhere. Fast Attack felt about right, but no idea what the acquisition ranges actually were in that game, because of the abstract WYSIWYG nature of the plots.

[PL_Harpoon]

That's good to hear. Though since you've actually boosted the sensitivity of the helicopter's dipping sonar, it should continue to work just fine.


They seem to work nice during my testing. Right now it works something like that. If he's let's say about 500 yards away he won't get a precise solution if you're sailing deep and in silent mode. But as soon as you go to as much as 10 knots he can track you easily.


I can see the dilemma. Personally, if it comes down to it, I'll agree that Sierra and above can require two torpedoes if that's the only way to ensure a Sovremenny has two torps worth of "health".

Well, we have 300 tons of displacement between them so there is some leeway here. Perhaps I should fine-tune it so that a Mark 48 can just barely kill a Sierra but just almost kill Sovremenny.

I know they aren't. But even the Mk 48 Mod 1, the first operational variant is several precious years more advanced than the Mark 37 Mod 2 at a time when computers are just being introduced and advances in sonar technology are made at a high speed. To give an idea the kind of improvements in this era, If you compare for example the 1967 MGK-300 Rubin sonar versus the 1976 MGK-400 Rubikon, the range actually triples from 60 to 200+ kilometers (obviously, they are assuming a very noisy target). In such conditions do you really think the increase over Mark 37 would only be in the order of 60%, even counting the fact it is faster?

As for 1,600m, I can see two possibilities.
1) That might have been the Mark 46 (with a much smaller and thus less capable seeker head). The FAS site seems to have ingested some Mark-46ish information, including "Min/Max ASROC launching ranges 1500 to 12000 yards" and "Run characteristics 6-8 minutes downward".
2) If it really has to do with the Mark 48, it might reflect its surface detection range. If you look at the below site, for the UGST the Russians claim 2.5km detection range against a submarine, but only 1.2km for a surface ship - presumably the surface ship range is less because so much of the ship is out of the water and the increased surface noise so near the surface. From that, we may infer that a torpedo with 4000m acquisition against submarines may plausibly be reduced to roughly 1.6km against a surface ship.
http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/naval-systems/ugst/

Of course, maybe one can argue for gameplay we should nerf the detection range anyway, but the above is my two cents on the "realism" part.


Well, there's also the case of self noise. A very good sensor may be just as effective on a noisy platform as a worse sensor on a quiet one. That could explain them having similar detection ranges. If you compare propulsion, all Soviet torpedoes use electric batteries, while Mk48 uses piston engines along with pump jets. It also has two propellers. I think that can create a lot more noise that relatively quiet electric motors.


Personally, the risk of the target turning out to be very far away has been an effective deterrent against using "gamey tactics", and unfortunately, I've already lost way too many torpedoes within a minute or so of launching them to feel like "easily wire-guide it for at least 10 KYDS" is a reliable idea. In desperation I now stop after launching to try and save my torpedo wires and I consider myself lucky when the torpedo lasts long enough I get to cut the wire.

That's why, after some time with the game I quickly started to set torpedo waypoints close and only after they didn't break I moved them closer to target. But the patch seemed to improve that as right now Mk48s have 10% chance of braking the wire instead of initial 25.

[Lanzfeld]

Hey Harpoon,
Have you looked at the "refined sonar and countermeasures" mod in the download section? I was wondering if this might be something that you would want to add to your realism Mod. I think basically it makes all sonars less sensitive. It seems like it would be more realistic to me. What do you think?


Also when using a realistic mod what factor should be used under distance setting? X1, x2, etc...?

[PL_Harpoon]

Hey Harpoon,
Have you looked at the "refined sonar and countermeasures" mod in the download section? I was wondering if this might be something that you would want to add to your realism Mod. I think basically it makes all sonars less sensitive. It seems like it would be more realistic to me. What do you think?

Yeah, I have, but the thing is, I don't think that sonars are on the whole too powerful. If you consider that engagement starts as soon as there's a contact it seems that your sensors can pick up a convoy at 20 km (with good weather). I think that's a reasonable distance. With silent running subs it can go down to 5.

As for the active countermeasures, they seem interesting at first but then they're using VLS which is a detriment to me, and what's the point anyway?
To be honest I haven't noticed a difference in behaviour between active and passive torpedoes (other that passive don't ping). From my experience you can be dead silent and still be detected by a passive torp at the same distance as with active. They also react identical to noisemakers.

In my opinion they should work like that:
Passive torps effectiveness should increase with the noise of the target countered by the speed (noise) of a torpedo and ambient noise. When encountering the noisemaker they should identify it as such and try to go around it (basically like they do it now). Also, they should not go for wrecks or at least try to avoid them just like noisemakers.

Active torpedoes effectiveness should depend entirely on distance to target reduced only if they're on the opposite side of a layer. When they encounter a countermeasure they should just go for it with a chance of exploding on contact (their ping has returned so there must be a target there). They also might accidentally target a wreck.

If we had torpedoes acting like that or similar, having active CM would make sense. Right now it doesn't.


Also when using a realistic mod what factor should be used under distance setting? X1, x2, etc...?

Yeah, I forgot about that. :)
1:1 scale, 1x time.

[Julhelm]

We never had any proper tools to debug the AI during development. We've since developed something so expect major improvements in this area in the coming patches.

[PL_Harpoon]

We never had any proper tools to debug the AI during development. We've since developed something so expect major improvements in this area in the coming patches.

That's some great news.
Keep it up :up:

[Lanzfeld]

Yes.....very good news.

Onward and upwards!

[Lanzfeld]

Well that does look suspect. I'll forward the video.

Julhelm,
Did you ever follow up on this?
This is a big one if the AI is cheating.

[subunit]

Julhelm,
Did you ever follow up on this?
This is a big one if the AI is cheating.

From 1.02b changelog:

AI subs must maintain contact to continue wire guiding torpedoes

[Julhelm]

You know, AI always cheats in games. And in the event someone was to make a really brilliant AI, everyone would automatically assume it to be cheating AI anyway. Most of the AI cheats here, though, are due to bugs or oversights since we haven't had any good AI debug tools until now.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Well, we have 300 tons of displacement between them so there is some leeway here. Perhaps I should fine-tune it so that a Mark 48 can just barely kill a Sierra but just almost kill Sovremenny.

I've been doing some thinking while rummaging through the customizable text files.

If "displacement" primarily controls the ship's survivability, with its maneuverability really being controlled by "Acceleration", "Deceleration", "Turn Rate" ... etc, then we can increase the differential between surface ships and submarines by using the sub's surfaced displacement value (for a Sierra, it is 6300 tons) as the starting point, not the submerged value.

After all, comparing apples to apples, the real mass of a sub is its surfaced displacement. Its submerged displacement is preplanned flooding with seawater. Why should that be considered part of the ship, and even its survivability guestimated on that basis?

What do you think? This should make it much easier to have vulnerable subs and suitably tough surface ships.

[Lanzfeld]

You know, AI always cheats in games. And in the event someone was to make a really brilliant AI, everyone would automatically assume it to be cheating AI anyway. Most of the AI cheats here, though, are due to bugs or oversights since we haven't had any good AI debug tools until now.

I see.......

Are you going to eliminate the AI cheats or keep them in there?

[FPSchazly]

Is displacement really the primary factor? Isn't it reserve buoyancy? I am not a naval architect or know much about this topic, but given an American sub and a Russian sub of the same displacement and assuming the American is single-hulled and the Russian is double-hulled, the Russian sub would have a higher survivability due to increased reserve buoyancy.

[PL_Harpoon]

I've been doing some thinking while rummaging through the customizable text files.

If "displacement" primarily controls the ship's survivability, with its maneuverability really being controlled by "Acceleration", "Deceleration", "Turn Rate" ... etc, then we can increase the differential between surface ships and submarines by using the sub's surfaced displacement value (for a Sierra, it is 6300 tons) as the starting point, not the submerged value.

After all, comparing apples to apples, the real mass of a sub is its surfaced displacement. Its submerged displacement is preplanned flooding with seawater. Why should that be considered part of the ship, and even its survivability guestimated on that basis?

What do you think? This should make it much easier to have vulnerable subs and suitably tough surface ships.

It's a good idea. Will have to test to see if it doesn't affect diving/surfacing.

Is displacement really the primary factor? Isn't it reserve buoyancy? I am not a naval architect or know much about this topic, but given an American sub and a Russian sub of the same displacement and assuming the American is single-hulled and the Russian is double-hulled, the Russian sub would have a higher survivability due to increased reserve buoyancy.

The only proof I have is a little test I made. I've significantly bumped displacement for Alligator (basically added one 0 to the number) and tried to sink it in tutorial mission. If I remember correctly it took 4 torpedoes to sink it, but instead of sinking it just flipped over and floated on the surface.
That's why I'm cautious about changing displacement and that's why I choose to account for different hull designs by modifying Player and AI hull modifiers in difficulty settings.

[Raptor_Pilot]

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.

Indeed, better feedback than, "It just feels wrong," is needed. Are there any published sources of doctrine, training, or tactics available? I'd be more than happy to purchase and read such documents in order to provide analysis.
Given the fact naval combat never actually broke out during the Cold War, the only source we have for information is educated speculation, and what unclassified after action reports are available.

The AI uses the same TMA and sensor algorithms as the player and generally shoots only on an >85% solution.

Can you include in the A.I. a tendency to counterfire down the bearing of an incoming torpedo, even if they have no contacts detected? From what I've seen, this barely happens.
Even if they have no target detected, any incoming torpedo indicates an enemy is present somewhere down that bearing, and it would at least give the player something to account for before opening fire.

Using MekStark's low underwater visibility mod.

The ability to see sonar contacts in the 3D environment is one of the tools provided to the player.
I never understood why blindfolding the player is considered "realistic" especially if one wants to take screenshots or record video. All it does is make water dark because "water is dark".
Given the fact the player is tasked with literally driving their submarine around using the WASD keys, low visibility is only a hindrance, not an enhancement.

After all, comparing apples to apples, the real mass of a sub is its surfaced displacement. Its submerged displacement is preplanned flooding with seawater. Why should that be considered part of the ship, and even its survivability guestimated on that basis?

I think a more complete understanding between ship displacement and toughness is needed, especially if part of the ship physics is controlled using displacement values.
You don't want huge submarines suddenly driving around as if they only massed a fraction of their submerged displacement.

[keltos01]

We never had any proper tools to debug the AI during development. We've since developed something so expect major improvements in this area in the coming patches.


love your AI (erm actually kindo hate it ! ;) )

:up:

[Julhelm]

So, you guys are not going to get any results from changing displacement. Everything you need to change to tweak the maneuvering characteristics is the movement part of the ship data:

SurfaceSpeed=16
SubmergedSpeed=0
AccelerationRate=0.08
DecelerationRate=0.08
RudderTurnRate=0.5
TurnRate=2
PivotPointTurning=0.256
DiveRate=0
SurfaceRate=0
BallastRate=0

The movement system is based on translations, not actual boyancy physics. In fact, the boyancy physics do not kick in until ships/subs are damaged and start flooding.

The default settings for the subs were made to feel very responsive on purpose. Nobody likes sluggish, ketchup-bottle controls, realistic or not.

[PL_Harpoon]

The movement system is based on translations, not actual boyancy physics. In fact, the boyancy physics do not kick in until ships/subs are damaged and start flooding.

That's good to know, although 24 too late (already managed to adjust warhead sizes just yesterday).
This might get useful later, so thanks anyway.

Nobody likes sluggish, ketchup-bottle controls, realistic or not.
I wouldn't be so sure about that :03:

BTW, all I need to do now is add inertia to other us boats and I'll be uploading "Realism" mod v0.2 :)

[subunit]

Nobody likes sluggish, ketchup-bottle controls, realistic or not.

, he said, in a forum whose denizens had put man-years of labour into making sure that sampans would continue to float realistically after taking hundreds of 3" shells,

[Nimmo55]

Hi. Opted for the latest 1.03 Beta: game crashed when selected single mission: just went to a static picture of the sub, and not responsive to any commands. In short, froze. I deleted the Override folder this mod comes with, and fixed! No more crashes.
Hoping the mod is made compatible asap, as I really like it.

regards,

Nimmo

[PL_Harpoon]

New version coming today.

[Nimmo55]

That's great PL Harpoon. Thank you.

Nimmo55

[denis_469]

USETs have longer range (however I couldn't find any data that would prove that so perhaps it is too much) but are also slower than 48s.


Data about torpedoes before 1989 year and USET-80: http://sovpl.forum24.ru/?1-4-20-00000051-000-20-0#020

All what you need.

[denis_469]

2) If it really has to do with the Mark 48, it might reflect its surface detection range. If you look at the below site, for the UGST the Russians claim 2.5km detection range against a submarine, but only 1.2km for a surface ship - presumably the surface ship range is less because so much of the ship is out of the water and the increased surface noise so near the surface. From that, we may infer that a torpedo with 4000m acquisition against submarines may plausibly be reduced to roughly 1.6km against a surface ship.
http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/naval-systems/ugst/


UGST testing against Russian subs with acoustic coating submarines, but Mk-48 mod 4 and 5 testinig against US subs without acoustic coating. Or simple steel submarines. Range defference between is near 3 times. F.e. homing system can detect sub with acoustic coating in range 1500 meters or without acoustic coating 4500 meters. Homing system Mk-48 mod.4 have range 3500 meters in submarines without acoustic coating. UGST have 2500 meter against submarine with acoustic coating.

[PL_Harpoon]

Data about torpedoes before 1989 year and USET-80: http://sovpl.forum24.ru/?1-4-20-00000051-000-20-0#020

All what you need.

UGST testing against Russian subs with acoustic coating submarines, but Mk-48 mod 4 and 5 testinig against US subs without acoustic coating. Or simple steel submarines. Range defference between is near 3 times. F.e. homing system can detect sub with acoustic coating in range 1500 meters or without acoustic coating 4500 meters. Homing system Mk-48 mod.4 have range 3500 meters in submarines without acoustic coating. UGST have 2500 meter against submarine with acoustic coating.

Thanks. A lot of useful stuff there.
I have two questions though. Can you tell us what was your source for all this data? And, since you seem to have more knowledge of Soviet torpedoes than anyone else in this thread perhaps you now whatt type of warhead are used in Soviet torpedoes in the game (UMGT-1, Test-71, USET-80, SET-65, in case you don't have the game)?

There is a slight problem with using this data in a game though. As far as I know, acquisition range for torpedoes is constant, meaning, if you set torpedo range to 4000 yards it will always detect anything within that 4kyds regardless of any coating. And not every Soviet sub in the game has them (looking at the files, Novembers and Alfas don't).
But, since most of them have, I'll leave Mk48 range at 1600 yards.
As for other torpedoes, looking at this data shows that (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong):

Test-71 - should have detection range of 2600 yds (your site says it's 800m, but was released from 1976 so it was tested against coated subs, so 800m*3 converted to yards is around 2600

SET-65 - theoretically it should have the same range as Test-71, but since the set-65 is used by the '68 era subs I've decided to use earlier models, which means 400-600m for surface vessels. For a torpedo in the game I think 400 yds is a good number.

USET-80 and UMGT-1 - your site tells us it's 1500m. If we assume it's against coated subs, so the range against uncoated US vessels in the game should be 4500m = 4900 yds. A bit much, but that's considering the ration of detecting coated/uncoated sub is 3:1 (is there any example of a torpedo being tested against both for reference?

[denis_469]

Can you tell us what was your source for all this data?
All write in open sources. First my ebook was for Headquarters Northern fleet in Severomorsk in 2000 year. After it I receive more data and write in himself. Except my write naval weapons for HQ Northern fleet I not place information. I have my site and write describe torpedoes an missiles as I wish.


And, since you seem to have more knowledge of Soviet torpedoes than anyone else in this thread perhaps you now whatt type of warhead are used in Soviet torpedoes in the game (UMGT-1, Test-71, USET-80, SET-65, in case you don't have the game)?
Usually warheads. Morskaya smes in Russian.

I have not Cold waters, so not know what torpedoes in you game.


There is a slight problem with using this data in a game though. As far as I know, acquisition range for torpedoes is constant, meaning, if you set torpedo range to 4000 yards it will always detect anything within that 4kyds regardless of any coating. And not every Soviet sub in the game has them (looking at the files, Novembers and Alfas don't).
Exept November all subs have coating. And Alfa like.


But, since most of them have, I'll leave Mk48 range at 1600 yards.
As for other torpedoes, looking at this data shows that (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong):

Test-71 - should have detection range of 2600 yds (your site says it's 800m, but was released from 1976 so it was tested against coated subs, so 800m*3 converted to yards is around 2600

SET-65 - theoretically it should have the same range as Test-71, but since the set-65 is used by the '68 era subs I've decided to use earlier models, which means 400-600m for surface vessels. For a torpedo in the game I think 400 yds is a good number.

USET-80 and UMGT-1 - your site tells us it's 1500m. If we assume it's against coated subs, so the range against uncoated US vessels in the game should be 4500m = 4900 yds. A bit much, but that's considering the ration of detecting coated/uncoated sub is 3:1 (is there any example of a torpedo being tested against both for reference?

Data about torpedoes you can easy read. About correlation ranges: during 1960-1980 years was near 3, so range was small. After it proportion lesser and now in last modern torpedos is like 2000 meters with coating and 3000 meters without coating. It is not data modern homing system, simple for understand modern proportion. So power homing system near high level in range and so defference between cuts. In 2020 years, I think, that deferrence endede and coating woud not cuts find ranges for modern homing systems. During 1990-2000 years was near 1,5-2 and now less 1,5.

All soviet (Russian) torpedoes testing against our subs with coating after 1960 years.

And more: what I write like proportion 3:1 - it is in excellent sea condition. In really ocean proportion must less. For torpedoes this period near 2,3 - 2,5 I think. When you read about torpedoes homing ranges so see in homing systems. UMGT-1 and USET-80 have identical homing system Vodopad. So data about range identical. For 1984 year you need made SET-65 III modification. In 1986 year SET-65K modofication. With other soviet torpedoes you need made last modificaton for year. So first SET-65 and SET-65K too defference between.

[Delgard]

Thank-you Denis!

I understand your searching for information. Open Source information collection is amazing. It takes time, but is very rewarding.

[Julhelm]

My research told me the Clusterguard tiles give a 50% reduction in active detection range, which seems plausible. There's a problem with the torpedoes in that they currently ignore the anechoic tiles, which is a programming oversight. We'll fix this in subsequent updates so it is probably best to have a common set of detection ranges.

[PL_Harpoon]

All write in open sources. First my ebook was for Headquarters Northern fleet in Severomorsk in 2000 year. After it I receive more data and write in himself. Except my write naval weapons for HQ Northern fleet I not place information. I have my site and write describe torpedoes an missiles as I wish.


Usually warheads. Morskaya smes in Russian.

I have not Cold waters, so not know what torpedoes in you game.


Exept November all subs have coating. And Alfa like.



Data about torpedoes you can easy read. About correlation ranges: during 1960-1980 years was near 3, so range was small. After it proportion lesser and now in last modern torpedos is like 2000 meters with coating and 3000 meters without coating. It is not data modern homing system, simple for understand modern proportion. So power homing system near high level in range and so defference between cuts. In 2020 years, I think, that deferrence endede and coating woud not cuts find ranges for modern homing systems. During 1990-2000 years was near 1,5-2 and now less 1,5.

All soviet (Russian) torpedoes testing against our subs with coating after 1960 years.

And more: what I write like proportion 3:1 - it is in excellent sea condition. In really ocean proportion must less. For torpedoes this period near 2,3 - 2,5 I think. When you read about torpedoes homing ranges so see in homing systems. UMGT-1 and USET-80 have identical homing system Vodopad. So data about range identical. For 1984 year you need made SET-65 III modification. In 1986 year SET-65K modofication. With other soviet torpedoes you need made last modificaton for year. So first SET-65 and SET-65K too defference between.

Thanks. That's a lot of useful informations. :Kaleun_Salute:

[PL_Harpoon]

Ok, here it goes.

Second iteration of "realism mod" beta.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5SxzQiHG6vKbWowYldoTlZsY1U

Here's total list of changes. (highlighted new changes in bold).

Installation:

Place the override folder in steamapps\common\Cold Waters\ColdWaters_Data\StreamingAssets


IMPORTANT!
Mod is compatible with CW ver 1.03 beta.
Play at HARD difficulty with 1:1 scale and 1x time.


Changes:

Campaign:
- reduced recon ranges
- time 2x slower
- bonus: Nato icons for the map
- increased time between events


Movement:
- increased angular momentum for all US subs (also slightly reduced for LA from previous version) - now all subs turn differently (in vanilla Sturgeon, Permit and Narwhal shared the same values).

Sensors:
- MAD detection range reduced to 400
- Sonobuoys passive sensitivity reduced to 25
- Dipping sonar sensitivity increased to 32
- decreased TMA rate for player and AI to 0.7

Weapons:
- new warhead sizes for all torpedoes - first based on real values of TNT equivalent, than uniformaly scaled so that a single MK48 can kill most subs but not heavier ships (above 8000 tons)
- new noise values for all torpedoes based on speed and propulsion types
- decreased acquisition range for Mark 48 to 1600.
- decreased sensor angle for Mark 48 to 60.
- new acquisition ranges for all Soviet torpedoes based on real values
- decreased lifetime for knuckles to 3
- decreased noise (effectivnes) for knuckles to 50

Other:
- decreased player hull strength to 0.65
- increased AI hull strength to 1.25
- increased combat repair time to 2.5



Using MekStark's low underwater visibility mod.


Thanks to Denis_469 for data on Soviet torpedoes.

[ClaudiuC]

What does it mean hard difficulty?
We don't have such a setting in the game... it's either realistic or elite?
Also which file is using the reduced visibility mode... I don't really fancy it (makes the game look worse) so I would like to remove it.
In fact I would like to see a more dynamic ocean (with fishes and fauna and stuff) rather than a dull dark ocean... you have lots of time to basically do nothing in the game so the visuals can make this boredom a bit better...

[PL_Harpoon]

What does it mean hard difficulty?
We don't have such a setting in the game... it's either realistic or elite?

Sorry, didn't notice they changed name :)
Realistic then.

Also which file is using the reduced visibility mode... I don't really fancy it (makes the game look worse) so I would like to remove it.

Just delete whole environment folder from override.

[ClaudiuC]

Thanks mate!

[PL_Harpoon]

I've messed up.
Warhead sizes were too big.

Here's new link with correct ones:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5SxzQiHG6vKbWowYldoTlZsY1U
(link in previous post changed too)

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Personally, I just took your new subs and kept the defaults for the rest, for now.

[RushTheBus]

Just out of curiosity what sources are you using for some of these values (outside of personal preference)?

[PL_Harpoon]

Just out of curiosity what sources are you using for some of these values (outside of personal preference)?

All the research can be found in this thread.

But, to make your life a little easier I'll break it down here:

Campaign:
- reduced recon ranges
- time 2x slower
- bonus: Nato icons for the map
- increased time between events
These are purely my personal preference. For ex. with recon ranges I think the game gives you too much information about where the enemy is - there's no uncertainty common in submarine warfare - that's why I changed it.


Movement:
- increased angular momentum for all US subs
Basically, I starter by comparing 688 with DW. After achieving roughly similar results I based values for other boats on displacement difference (for ex. displacement ratio between Narwhal and 688 is 1.288, so for Narwhal I multiplied LA's values by this number).


- MAD detection range reduced to 400
This paper: http://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/19199/comparisonofthre00schl.pdf?sequence=1
page 42 (took the middle value for 60 latitudes)


- Sonobuoys passive sensitivity reduced to 25
- Dipping sonar sensitivity increased to 32
Based on gut feelings with comparing to DW


- decreased TMA rate for player and AI to 0.7
Personal preference and gameplay reasons (I think TMA's are too quick in base game)


- new warhead sizes for all torpedoes
First, I took warhead sizes from this website: - new warhead sizes for all torpedoes (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/- new warhead sizes for all torpedoes)
Then I calculated their TNT equivalent. After that I replaced the Mk48 warhead in the game with a real value and did some tweaking so you need 2 torpedoes to kill Sovremenny but 1 for most submarines. Turned out it's 0.83 of real value. Then I multiplied real values for all weapons by 0.83 and put those in the game.


- new noise values for all torpedoes based on speed and propulsion types
Here's the spreadsheet that contains all calculations: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-qt7vGVJ1XQSe2cdlG-SB01uXeJQ54aenD2F2fgiJX4/edit#gid=1880361556


- decreased sensor angle for Mark 48 to 60.
Gut feeling based on playing DW


- decreased acquisition range for Mark 48 to 1600.
- new acquisition ranges for all Soviet torpedoes based on real values
Mostly, denis_469's forums (http://sovpl.forum24.ru/?1-4-20-00000051-000-20-0#020) and conversations in this thread.


- decreased lifetime for knuckles to 3
- decreased noise (effectivnes) for knuckles to 50
Personal preference


- decreased player hull strength to 0.65
- increased AI hull strength to 1.25
This to account for different hull design (single hull for us, double for Soviet) - basically this means that any torpedo except UMGT-1 will kill any US sub.


- increased combat repair time to 2.5
That's also personal preference

[ollie1983]

Can we have these values added to a mod which lets you tweak them in the settings page?

[Lanzfeld]

Does this mean I need to be updated or is it OK?

[PL_Harpoon]

Does this mean I need to be updated or is it OK?

What do you mean updated?

The mod is made to work on the latest Cold Waters patch (1.04 currently).

[Wiz33]

Hate to rain on the parade but this is kind of pointless. What make people here thinks that they have more accurate info on varies systems than the Dev. Sure everyone is claiming sources but most of those (if not all) is in English. What happen to foreign language source, Did anyone check/translate those. Without knowing what the Dev uses for reference, What make you guys think your source is more accurate. Some even used data from other games, much older games, sure some of the team back then even have professional consulting for them or in their team but if anyone watched Jive's video, you'll see that he probably thought certain thing may be inaccurate but he can't say anything without getting a visit from the DOD so basically any mods resulting from is is just a personal preference mod and have nothing to do with realism, at least not without someone violating their security clearance.

[PL_Harpoon]

Well, obviously most of the exact parameters are classified.

But the devs need to make the game playable for everyone so they need to make some exceptions. For example, all boats in the game turn in a simplified manner - without any momentum. It's a good idea from a gameplay perspective, but if you want realism, you can safely change those values.

For MAD sensors I provided a source, which seems accurate enough - even document date is close to game time.

Or let's look at the most radical changes in my mod - torpedoes. If I remember correctly, devs stated that a lot of their info about torpedoes comes from this site: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.php which is what I also used initially. But even using just this you can clearly find that for ex. Mk48 were said to be extremely noisy (which is also quite easy to deduce when looking at their propulsion types), yet in the game they are generally as noisy as any other homing torpedo (despite being faster). Then Denis_469 showed up with a great deal of detailed information on Soviet and US weapons that seemed to shed some new light.

The thing is, while making this (and others similair) mod we don't need to worry about accessibility to every type of player. So yes, there is some personal preference, but it's at least backed by research. And also, isn't this the whole point of modding?

[Wiz33]

Well, obviously most of the exact parameters are classified.

But the devs need to make the game playable for everyone so they need to make some exceptions. For example, all boats in the game turn in a simplified manner - without any momentum. It's a good idea from a gameplay perspective, but if you want realism, you can safely change those values.

For MAD sensors I provided a source, which seems accurate enough - even document date is close to game time.

Or let's look at the most radical changes in my mod - torpedoes. If I remember correctly, devs stated that a lot of their info about torpedoes comes from this site: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.php which is what I also used initially. But even using just this you can clearly find that for ex. Mk48 were said to be extremely noisy (which is also quite easy to deduce when looking at their propulsion types), yet in the game they are generally as noisy as any other homing torpedo (despite being faster). Then Denis_469 showed up with a great deal of detailed information on Soviet and US weapons that seemed to shed some new light.

The thing is, while making this (and others similair) mod we don't need to worry about accessibility to every type of player. So yes, there is some personal preference, but it's at least backed by research. And also, isn't this the whole point of modding?

Well actually on the Mk48 noise, Jive's did burb out that it's actually fairly quiet and even they can't hear it past a short distance till they go active and kick to high speed. That's why you're suppose to dogleg your torp before they go active so if they fire a snapshot to the bearing it won't be pointing at you.

[PL_Harpoon]

Well actually on the Mk48 noise, Jive's did burb out that it's actually fairly quiet and even they can't hear it past a short distance till they go active and kick to high speed. That's why you're suppose to dogleg your torp before they go active so if they fire a snapshot to the bearing it won't be pointing at you.
Well, that just poses a question how quiet it is compared to other torpedoes. Perhaps that would mean that Russian torpedoes are even more quiet.
You can't get around the issue of it using piston engine and water jet propulsion as opposed to electric motors.

[Wiz33]

Well, that just poses a question how quiet it is compared to other torpedoes. Perhaps that would mean that Russian torpedoes are even more quiet.
You can't get around the issue of it using piston engine and water jet propulsion as opposed to electric motors.

Actually, i think he's referring to the later ADCAP as those got a lot of sound isolation improvements so the original MK48 maybe much louder but I can actually answer that without security clearance. My company used to work for Gould Inc that build the Mk48 and since I was already deep into modern military stuff back then. I did raise that question in the early 80s and the answer (no actual noise level was ever mentioned and the answer are in very general terms) I got is that it's slightly quieter or about the same as that Soviet torp in that era depending on which model but given that Soviet sonar equipment was generally inferior to their US equivalent at the time, they believe that we'll always pickup their torps before they pickup ours.

Another point that was raise is that in general, it's much easier to pickup launch transients before you pickup the torp's self noise so if you're able to masking that (firing from the other side of the layer), the chance of them getting a bearing to shoot back is much less.

[PL_Harpoon]

Actually, i think he's referring to the later ADCAP as those got a lot of sound isolation improvements so the original MK48 maybe much louder but I can actually answer that without security clearance. My company used to work for Gould Inc that build the Mk48 and since I was already deep into modern military stuff back then. I did raise that question in the early 80s and the answer (no actual noise level was ever mentioned and the answer are in very general terms) I got is that it's slightly quieter or about the same as that Soviet torp in that era depending on which model but given that Soviet sonar equipment was generally inferior to their US equivalent at the time, they believe that we'll always pickup their torps before they pickup ours.

Another point that was raise is that in general, it's much easier to pickup launch transients before you pickup the torp's self noise so if you're able to masking that (firing from the other side of the layer), the chance of them getting a bearing to shoot back is much less.

I wonder how a Russian working on their torpedoes would answer that question ;)

BTW, don't think I'm contradicting you just for the sake of contradiction.
I'm just not very good at this whole "believing what people say" business :)

[Wiz33]

I wonder how a Russian working on their torpedoes would answer that question ;)

BTW, don't think I'm contradicting you just for the sake of contradiction.
I'm just not very good at this whole "believing what people say" business :)

No offense taken at all, I would have treated it the same way, but all the varies sub sims back then tends to point to the same conclusion. But then again, they're all made by imperialist Americans.:03:

Does this help?:haha:


http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y470/Wiz13688/IMG_3141_LI_zpsy817bjg8.jpg[/URL]

[Ansgar Burkhard]

I wonder how a Russian working on their torpedoes would answer that question ;)

BTW, don't think I'm contradicting you just for the sake of contradiction.
I'm just not very good at this whole "believing what people say" business :)

And that is the healthy attitude to have. When reading American and Russian sources on the period from the US side it appears that the Russian subs were rubbish that would be picked apart instantly (without even considering different uses) whereas the Russian side refers to their subs as more equal although they had some disadvantages in terms of SONAR and acoustics. Looking at your noise levels for Russian and American submarines appears to tell the same story. And then we enter the Russian domain of wake tracking and detection which is still classified research to this day and non acoustic methods of detection which the Russians explored a lot more from what I could find.

[denis_469]

And that is the healthy attitude to have. When reading American and Russian sources on the period from the US side it appears that the Russian subs were rubbish that would be picked apart instantly (without even considering different uses) whereas the Russian side refers to their subs as more equal although they had some disadvantages in terms of SONAR and acoustics. Looking at your noise levels for Russian and American submarines appears to tell the same story. And then we enter the Russian domain of wake tracking and detection which is still classified research to this day and non acoustic methods of detection which the Russians explored a lot more from what I could find.

"In the first half of 1969, an experimental Soks "Snegir" was installed on it. In September-October of the same year, as part of the Pacific Fleet exercises, the boat was engaged in the search and tracking of the US Navy's nuclear submarines in the Philippine Sea and on approaches to Fr. Guam. K-14 managed to track one of the ships of the probable enemy with the help of this system for almost 40 days. Due to this success, Soks "Snegir" was developed and subsequently one of its modifications was installed on domestic third-generation nuclear submarines."
K-14 is submarine project 627A (NATO - November). It was US submarine "Benjamin Franklin" class. Our sub start tracking when US sub go from Guam and continue before US sub return to Guam base.

It is 1969 year. First non acoustic system. During this patrol "K-14" few times go to US sub for acoustic contact. "K-14" not need acoustic contact with US sub and know where US sub was.

[Ansgar Burkhard]

"In the first half of 1969, an experimental Soks "Snegir" was installed on it. In September-October of the same year, as part of the Pacific Fleet exercises, the boat was engaged in the search and tracking of the US Navy's nuclear submarines in the Philippine Sea and on approaches to Fr. Guam. K-14 managed to track one of the ships of the probable enemy with the help of this system for almost 40 days. Due to this success, Soks "Snegir" was developed and subsequently one of its modifications was installed on domestic third-generation nuclear submarines."
K-14 is submarine project 627A (NATO - November). It was US submarine "Benjamin Franklin" class. Our sub start tracking when US sub go from Guam and continue before US sub return to Guam base.

It is 1969 year. First non acoustic system. During this patrol "K-14" few times go to US sub for acoustic contact. "K-14" not need acoustic contact with US sub and know where US sub was.


Yes, as I suspected they picked up a trail bear a bas where it is expected for a submarine to try and leave. As I said, SOKS research, although largely dismissed in the West until very recently, is still classified by the Russian authorities. I would love to get my hands on it. If you have more info from Russian sources on wake detection please feel free to post it.

[denis_469]

Yes, as I suspected they picked up a trail bear a bas where it is expected for a submarine to try and leave. As I said, SOKS research, although largely dismissed in the West until very recently, is still classified by the Russian authorities. I would love to get my hands on it. If you have more info from Russian sources on wake detection please feel free to post it.

I think, that I write about in my site today. Understand, that not all, but can write about Snegir system.

Sorry, I have not enought data for write.

[MadMike]

I think the game needs some NATO warships, not to mention shipping (WP and NATO, and neutrals), in addition to biological contacts.

Would be interesting to see a naval plot from the time when the Warsaw Treaty Organization invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968, and of course mid 1984 (will see what I can dig up).

Yours, &c.

Mike

[PL_Harpoon]

I have a small question to the guys "in the know".

Looking how the torpedoes behave in the game vs other sub sims I began to wonder how do torpedoes behave when they acquire a target.
Do they turn straight for the target or do they somehow can calculate (or get data from ship if wireguided) it's speed/course and go towards the "meeting point"?

[Wiz33]

I have a small question to the guys "in the know".

Looking how the torpedoes behave in the game vs other sub sims I began to wonder how do torpedoes behave when they acquire a target.
Do they turn straight for the target or do they somehow can calculate (or get data from ship if wireguided) it's speed/course and go towards the "meeting point"?

Not someone in the know but logic would say that they head straight for the target as sonar only gives a bearing but no course and speed. Sure, with the wire still attached, you can probably steer it but I would think the the difference in fuel usage between a curve or straight course during the terminal homing phase is probably going to be minimal

[PL_Harpoon]

Not someone in the know but logic would say that they head straight for the target as sonar only gives a bearing but no course and speed. Sure, with the wire still attached, you can probably steer it but I would think the the difference in fuel usage between a curve or straight course during the terminal homing phase is probably going to be minimal

That's what I think too. Even a passive torp would have difficulties calculating target's movements (at least I think it would). But seeing how the torpedoes behave in CW made me question this.

[TigerDude]

I have a small question to the guys "in the know".

Looking how the torpedoes behave in the game vs other sub sims I began to wonder how do torpedoes behave when they acquire a target.
Do they turn straight for the target or do they somehow can calculate (or get data from ship if wireguided) it's speed/course and go towards the "meeting point"?They head straight to the target. There is no course-prediction capability, nor would you want one. Dead reckoning of the fish is used to determine for the fire control team where it is when it acquires. The torpedo starts "Range-gating" where it immediately pings when it gets a return. The time of pings corresponds to a distance from the torpedo using speed of sound in water. Add the 2 together to get true range to the target.

This is also a way to get the range of a torpedo that has acquired you.

It is quite un-nerving to be in a boat when a torpedo is range-gating on you. I experienced this is the sonar shack when we steered a practice fish 180 on the test range to prevent it from running into a wall. You maintained depth separation, but it was pretty eerie. The active-intercept receiver makes a high-low tone that gets progressively closer together.

[PL_Harpoon]

They head straight to the target. There is no course-prediction capability, nor would you want one.

Thanks

Dead reckoning of the fish is used to determine for the fire control team where it is when it acquires. The torpedo starts "Range-gating" where it immediately pings when it gets a return. The time of pings corresponds to a distance from the torpedo using speed of sound in water. Add the 2 together to get true range to the target.

This is also a way to get the range of a torpedo that has acquired you.

It is quite un-nerving to be in a boat when a torpedo is range-gating on you. I experienced this is the sonar shack when we steered a practice fish 180 on the test range to prevent it from running into a wall. You maintained depth separation, but it was pretty eerie. The active-intercept receiver makes a high-low tone that gets progressively closer together.

Cool. Actually I think CW is the only game that does something similair as the frequency increases with torpedo range to target.
Now, if we could somehow get torpedoes to go straight towards their targets... :Kaleun_Wink:

edit: fixed quotes

[Julhelm]

They used to have a lag pursuit intercept logic where they did just that, but we changed it to lead pursuit based on some info from RA mod I believe. We probably should change it back since the enemies were a lot better at evading the old torpedoes.

[MBot]

They head straight to the target. There is no course-prediction capability, nor would you want one.

Nor would you need one. Do torpedoes not use proportional navigation? Air-air missiles use this technique since the 50s. Turn until the bearing-rate is zero and you are on a collision course.

[Wiz33]

Nor would you need one. Do torpedoes not use proportional navigation? Air-air missiles use this technique since the 50s. Turn until the bearing-rate is zero and you are on a collision course.

Radar guided missile do that because they are guided by the plane's radar which have the target's course and speed. IR homing missile is always a lag pursuit. That's why you set an activation point for the torp so you can fire it at the predicted location and update that while using wire control. Once it goes active and picked up the target, it's lag pursuit unless you control it manually.

[TigerDude]

I have a small question to the guys "in the know".

Looking how the torpedoes behave in the game vs other sub sims I began to wonder how do torpedoes behave when they acquire a target.
Do they turn straight for the target or do they somehow can calculate (or get data from ship if wireguided) it's speed/course and go towards the "meeting point"?

Nor would you need one. Do torpedoes not use proportional navigation? Air-air missiles use this technique since the 50s. Turn until the bearing-rate is zero and you are on a collision course.I do believe you are right. Solve for constant bearing decreasing range. Bad for ships at sea, good for torpedoes

[MBot]

Radar guided missile do that because they are guided by the plane's radar which have the target's course and speed. IR homing missile is always a lag pursuit.

That is incorrect. Most famously, the Sidewinder employs proportional navigation.

[Wiz33]

That is incorrect. Most famously, the Sidewinder employs proportional navigation.

Proportional navigation is still a form of lag pursuit as in the missile fly in a curve line. New missiles like the AMRAAM flys straight towards the predicted target location upon intercept.

[MBot]

Proportional navigation is still a form of lag pursuit as in the missile fly in a curve line. New missiles like the AMRAAM flys straight towards the predicted target location upon intercept.

That is not correct, proportional navigation against a non-maneuvering target is a straight line to intercept. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_navigation

http://datagenetics.com/blog/august22014/cba.png

[Wiz33]

That is not correct, proportional navigation against a non-maneuvering target is a straight line to intercept. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_navigation

http://datagenetics.com/blog/august22014/cba.png

Got it, Thanks. Learned something new.

[Wiz33]

I posted this on the steam forum awhile back but before anyone ask for more realism (unless it's optional). read this thread:

It's hardcore players why this genre is dead

http://steamcommunity.com/app/541210/discussions/0/1368380934291143643/

[Onkel Neal]

Is that link working?

[Wiz33]

Is that link working?

Fixed

[Haukka81]

I posted this on the steam forum awhile back but before anyone ask for more realism (unless it's optional). read this thread:

It's hardcore players why this genre is dead

http://steamcommunity.com/app/541210/discussions/0/1368380934291143643/

Good post!

Agree 99%

[kramxel]

I posted this on the steam forum awhile back but before anyone ask for more realism (unless it's optional). read this thread:

It's hardcore players why this genre is dead

http://steamcommunity.com/app/541210/discussions/0/1368380934291143643/

So your logis is that "hardcore" sim gamers are small enough and unable to support a full sim, but are large enough to create bad rep on simcade games?
I really don't see it.

Reality is, companies prefer the short therm profit (selling x copies of Arcade v30, and selling v31 the next year) over developing something that the "hardcore" player base would actually support financially over time.

See what DCS is doing with flight sims, and you'll figure out there's plenty of market after all.

P.S: This post has nothing to do with Cold Waters.

[PL_Harpoon]

Here's a post that has something to do with Cold Waters.

I've just released a new version of my realism mod.

You can get it here:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=file&id=5268

I'd like this thread to be focused mainly on things that can be improved in the game, so I've created a separate thread just for the mod here:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2502484#post2502484

PS.
So your logis is that "hardcore" sim gamers are small enough and unable to support a full sim, but are large enough to create bad rep on simcade games?
I really don't see it.

Reality is, companies prefer the short therm profit (selling x copies of Arcade v30, and selling v31 the next year) over developing something that the "hardcore" player base would actually support financially over time.

See what DCS is doing with flight sims, and you'll figure out there's plenty of market after all.


My thoughts exactly with one exception: in my opinion the sad truth is that hardcore sims can't really provide enough profits to satisfy big publishers. It's not that bad though as independent developers seem to be more capable with each year.

[Wiz33]

Is that link working?

So your logis is that "hardcore" sim gamers are small enough and unable to support a full sim, but are large enough to create bad rep on simcade games?
I really don't see it.

Reality is, companies prefer the short therm profit (selling x copies of Arcade v30, and selling v31 the next year) over developing something that the "hardcore" player base would actually support financially over time.

See what DCS is doing with flight sims, and you'll figure out there's plenty of market after all.

P.S: This post has nothing to do with Cold Waters.

But it wasn't always that way. SSI and SimCan basically built their whole company around wargames, Falcon series made Spectrum Holobyte. Micropose had enough success with M1 tank platoon and Gunship to keep going, EA felt it's well worth the money they shell out for the Janes name. Origin got in on the action with Strike Commander and even the European software house like DID came in with TFX and EF2000. Sure, Console games are selling more and more but there was still a healthy market for military sim until it got so complicated that it start turning all except the hardcore gamer away. The early sims while being fairly simple, manage to draw in people with just a passing interest in military matters but as all the sims got more complicated and we lost the entry level sims. The learning curve became too steep for a lot of them.

[yamato9]

There is one simple solution which dates back to the C64 era.....Easy, medium, hard. It eliminates strife between casual and hardcore players.

For instance, Il2 sturmovik had a such options that you could set very easy gameplay, or if you wish you could ruin your nerves with realistic plane behavior, no external views, no markers etc...

By my opinion one of most important traits of simulation or any other game is openness and simplicity for modding. SCS software (Euro Truck Simulator series) live from this feature more than a decade now and they have truckload of customers. On other hand King of the road and Rig n Roll were quickly gone to oblivion because poor support and rigidness toward any modding except sounds.

[Wiz33]

There is one simple solution which dates back to the C64 era.....Easy, medium, hard. It eliminates strife between casual and hardcore players.

For instance, Il2 sturmovik had a such options that you could set very easy gameplay, or if you wish you could ruin your nerves with realistic plane behavior, no external views, no markers etc...

By my opinion one of most important traits of simulation or any other game is openness and simplicity for modding. SCS software (Euro Truck Simulator series) live from this feature more than a decade now and they have truckload of customers. On other hand King of the road and Rig n Roll were quickly gone to oblivion because poor support and rigidness toward any modding except sounds.

My initial post was in response to someone over at the steam forum that insist on calling CW an arcade game and not a sim. It's just a cautionary tale of what happen when we all insist on the most complex and accurate sims. The Genre needs entry level sims that would attract a new players and CW is a good one as witness by messages from new player with minimal experience asking for help and advice. I just want to make sure that we don't add a lot of complexity without making it optional or through mods.

Difficulty level options helps but some sims are so complex that even that won't help with such a deep learning curve like CMANO which is just not accessible to the casual player. While I appreciate all the effort that made CMANO what it is, it just satisfy the hardcore player group and does nothing to bring in new players.

[blkdimnd]

Moved to this thread (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2503023#post2503023).

[Barleyman]

Oh, we had a discussion thread too.. Well, some things are borked, e.g. TLAM strike is unwinnable as it glitches on exit screen.

[Spartaner251]

about SOKS

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a28724/submarine-sonar-soks/