Change log for 1.07

[lordroel]

So it seems that work on patch 1.07 has begon and that we might see some new Soviet helicopters and aircraft.

Version 1.07 change log
(http://steamcommunity.com/app/541210/discussions/0/1353742967807455160/)

[LeopardDriver]

Looks awesome so far. Still no key for the ships data reference book?

Please make a keybind for everything that can be done with the mouse as well! I don`t really like to use the mouse, prefer the keyboard, like in RSR.

Also, Mark 45 coming? With a conventional warhead? Or nuke one?

[lordroel]

Looks awesome so far. Still no key for the ships data reference book?

Please make a keybind for everything that can be done with the mouse as well! I don`t really like to use the mouse, prefer the keyboard, like in RSR.

Also, Mark 45 coming? With a conventional warhead? Or nuke one?

Do not think they can model a nuke torpedo, because you might end up sinking yourself.

[Capt Jack Harkness]

Do not think they can model a nuke torpedo, because you might end up sinking yourself.
Isn't the range shorter than the blast radius?

[The Bandit]

Isn't the range shorter than the blast radius?

Depends on how you look at it / who you ask. 10, 11 and 15kt yeilds have been quoted for the W34 (same warhead as in the Mk 101 Lulu nuclear depth charge) and according to tests the minimum safe range is 4500 yards @ periscope depth (weapon range is 12-15,000 yards @ 40 knots). Not sure what the depth the torpedo was set to detonate at though. The biggest thing though is, due to the "positive control" aspect of the weapon it had to be wire-guided the whole way and detonation was triggered by the submarine, so anybody launching one of these can't really take any evasive action to try and escape.

As for the conventional Mk 45 "Freedom Torpedo" from what I can tell these were never seriously considered by the USN and I'm not eve sure if any foreign customers bought any. I think both Turkey and Iran were interested (under the Shah the Iranians were buying the ex-USS Trout and I think the conventional Mk 45s were going to come along with it) but this didn't happen due to Cyprus and the Iranian Revolution.

[Mitchmaker]

i think it will be the conventional version anything else would be insane

[Julhelm]

It's a conjectural 'field mod' conventional Mk45 inspired by the Freedom torpedo. In game it uses the Mk14 warhead along with a Mk37 guidance package. Could make it a none wireguided homer so it's more like a SET-65.

[lordroel]

i think it will be the conventional version anything else would be insane
Yes because if there would be nuclear torpedoes in the game than the Soviets are allowed to use nuclear depth chargers if they had any.

[The Bandit]

Yes because if there would be nuclear torpedoes in the game than the Soviets are allowed to use nuclear depth chargers if they had any.

Well, I don't think anybody has done this yet, because there really isn't any incentive to, but I think with the way things sit right now, you could set the parameters for a soviet air-dropped nuclear depth-charge (Lulu equivalent) as the air-dropped DCs are the only thing in the game that has a blast radius.

The big thing there though is that the planes tend to be so accurate anyways that there would just be no escaping it.

[The Bandit]

It's a conjectural 'field mod' conventional Mk45 inspired by the Freedom torpedo. In game it uses the Mk14 warhead along with a Mk37 guidance package. Could make it a none wireguided homer so it's more like a SET-65.

Hm, I remember you guys mentioned possibly doing a Mk 37C, I've more or less created one in the OAS mod and I do find it to be somewhat fun and "realistic" (as in it performs as you think it should). At 36 knots it can run down anything in 1968, including Victor Is but, while I've improved the sensors somewhat, its not in the same neighborhood as the Mk 48. Engagement-wise it plays a lot more like the standard Mk 37 where in many cases a good bit of manual control is required to get it on target, and even then at a Victor I going flank speed, you're only talking about a 3-5 knot closing speed so its certainly not a wonder weapon.

Going non-wire-guided on a Mk 45 mod could make a bit of sense as by nature this would be something "thrown together" that would sure make it simpler. From all the reading I've done, I think the reason that the Navy never went down that route (improving the Mk 45 as it was a fast, electric torpedo that they already had in inventory), was that the range was considered too short. My understanding is that the "freedom torpedo" much like the work that was initiated on the Mk 37C (until the Navy got involved because, more or less they liked what Honeywell showed them) came from the private sector.

[cj95]

Did everyone just gloss over this part?




Combat
Direct telegraph and set course via map waypoint added
Set depth, periscope depth and emergency blow toolbar added
dictionary_message_log.txt added:

NavigationWaypointInfo=Set Course HEADING: <BRG> NavigationSetCourse=Conn, new course set, heading <BRG> NavigationSetDepth=Conn, changing depth to <DEPTH> <FEET> NavigationSetPeriscopeDepth=Conn, coming to periscope depth NavigationLevelOut=Conn, leveling the boat



Not really what I wanted personally, but I do gather that most of the community will be happy about it.

[grover]

I like the look of those changes :)

[ChaosphereIX]

I hope those buttons and telegraph instructions will be able to be toggled or hidden. I like driving my sub around.

[jrolson]

1.07 so soon! Looking forward to trying it.

[cj95]

I hope those buttons and telegraph instructions will be able to be toggled or hidden. I like driving my sub around.


Honestly I do too.:up:


.

[Capt Jack Harkness]

It's a conjectural 'field mod' conventional Mk45 inspired by the Freedom torpedo. In game it uses the Mk14 warhead along with a Mk37 guidance package. Could make it a none wireguided homer so it's more like a SET-65.



Usually I hate "what if" equipment in sim games but this actually seems plausible in a hypothetical shooting war back then. Both torpedoes are 19" and designed for swim out, and I wouldn't be surprised if you could physically bolt the pieces together from a 37 and a 45.

I can understand losing the wire guidance from a gameplay standpoint but both weapons had it, so I'm not sure what's best there... Then again whatever decision is made can be modded the other way anyhow.

[Shadow]

Usually I hate "what if" equipment in sim games but this actually seems plausible in a hypothetical shooting war back then. Both torpedoes are 19" and designed for swim out, and I wouldn't be surprised if you could physically bolt the pieces together from a 37 and a 45.

I can understand losing the wire guidance from a gameplay standpoint but both weapons had it, so I'm not sure what's best there... Then again whatever decision is made can be modded the other way anyhow.
Yes, it's only reasonable. In the event of an actual war with the Soviet Union in the 1960s, I doubt the US Navy would've tolerated such a stark contrast in torpedo performance with its adversary.

Looks to me the Mk 37 is very much a "peacetime torpedo". :O:

Thing is, would there be any restrictions to Mk 45 inventories? Anything to prevent it from completely replacing the Mk 37 in-game?

[The Bandit]

Yes, it's only reasonable. In the event of an actual war with the Soviet Union in the 1960s, I doubt the US Navy would've tolerated such a stark contrast in torpedo performance with its adversary.

Looks to me the Mk 37 is very much a "peacetime torpedo". :O:

Thing is, would there be any restrictions to Mk 45 inventories? Anything to prevent it from completely replacing the Mk 37 in-game?

I'd say it depends on how you look at it, production #s I think they made around 500 MK 45s which doesn't seem like a small number, but when you think of spreading that out to the whole navy, and then wonder how tolerant they are going to be when it comes to giving up tactical nuclear weapon capacity, during war-time no less.

I'm not sure if this is something that could be done easily but I'd love to see a logistics feature, you would figure that something like this (or a rushed Mk 37C) would have been available in very low numbers.

The other thing I'd point out with the 37C, it was intended to be produced and sent to the Navy as kits and installed on existing Mk37s by Navy Personnel at bases and even aboard tenders (in contrast with sending the weapon back to the vendor to be re-manufactured and upgraded).

[PurpleCow]

Did everyone just gloss over this part?
Combat
Direct telegraph and set course via map waypoint added
Set depth, periscope depth and emergency blow toolbar added
dictionary_message_log.txt added:



How does one go about setting a waypoint or depth on the map display?

[Capt Jack Harkness]

How does one go about setting a waypoint or depth on the map display?

Presumably the same way you fire a torpedo but with a different key bind?

[Jotte]

This looks juicy :D Those navigational features will sure be handy.

Just a little niggle. Several ships are discribed as Rocket ships, shouldn't that say as Guided-missile cruiser etc?

[Julhelm]

The Soviet 'rocket ship' concept is very different from the typical western 'guided missile cruiser'.

The Soviet ships are designed as primarily anti-surface units, with long-range anti-ship cruise missiles, while western guided missile cruisers have a primarily air defence mission.

[Jotte]

The Soviet 'rocket ship' concept is very different from the typical western 'guided missile cruiser'.

The Soviet ships are designed as primarily anti-surface units, with long-range anti-ship cruise missiles, while western guided missile cruisers have a primarily air defence mission.

Ok, taget :03: Never seen it labled like that befor.

Thank you for this gem of a game, its like being 14 y/o again in the best possible way:Kaleun_Salute::Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Did everyone just gloss over this part?




Combat
Direct telegraph and set course via map waypoint added
Set depth, periscope depth and emergency blow toolbar added
dictionary_message_log.txt added:

NavigationWaypointInfo=Set Course HEADING: <BRG> NavigationSetCourse=Conn, new course set, heading <BRG> NavigationSetDepth=Conn, changing depth to <DEPTH> <FEET> NavigationSetPeriscopeDepth=Conn, coming to periscope depth NavigationLevelOut=Conn, leveling the boat



Not really what I wanted personally, but I do gather that most of the community will be happy about it.

My sentiments exactly ... here it comes, automated steering... on the plus side, if they dare put that stuff in, I assume it means they are confident in the AI's depth-keeping, so if this is a step towards making the AI use depth more violently and confidently...

Yes, it's only reasonable. In the event of an actual war with the Soviet Union in the 1960s, I doubt the US Navy would've tolerated such a stark contrast in torpedo performance with its adversary.

Frankly, it is completely unrealistic and cannot be defended as anything other than an easy/cheat-mode in the 1968 environment.

Isn't the plot that it is the SOVIETS that are suddenly attacking the Americans? Why then would the Americans be able to suddenly have the advantage (isn't having superior silencing enough) of superior torpedoes (SET-65 class performance, slightly better seeking, and wire guidance)?

I understand a lot of people are struggling to put those useless Mark 37s against submarines (it doesn't help that I've modded my Novembers up to 31 knots), but still, surely the solution isn't to hand out another crutch.

If we are to have this torpedo, can we at least give it some real weaknesses? Maybe the seeker sensitivity can be only something like 300m as a "speed-penalty" to what must have been a very similar seeker to the Mark 37, which will make it a useful toy while not quite rendering the original torpedoes irrelevant?

[Capt Jack Harkness]

Frankly, it is completely unrealistic and cannot be defended as anything other than an easy/cheat-mode in the 1968 environment.

For sure. Those of us who prefer realism will have to ignore its existence.

[Delgard]

Realism is more challenging.

[LeopardDriver]

Actually I made the Mk 45 for myself several weeks ago. I gave it a conventional warhead (that can be done in conflict time), made it quick but with a short range. And it has close to no homing function, so you have to steer in manually into the target. That works pretty well for me. Also I never have more than four in my ships.

[Julhelm]

I personally like more options. The problem with US torpedoes of the period is that while they run from Mk27 through Mk48, almost all of them are crap or did not enter service. You could use tactical nukes in Strike Fighters, but they were always an 'I win'-button. I found it was much more interesting to try out things like fitting AIM-9's to the F-101's and see how they handled against the migs.

One option for the Mk45 to make it more tactically interesting would be giving it a Mk37 mod 0 guidance package, which is essentially an active/passive homer with no wire guidance capability.

At times I wonder if we should move to a renown system similar to SH that lets you 'buy' the appropriate weapons for your boat within what you can afford. If you want better stuff, have to earn it. While more realistic, the current time penalty doesn't really impose the same restrictions.

Strike Fighters had the option to play as mercenaries, where you literally had to earn your weapons, learning to use the cheaper weapons while attacking targets of opportunity to earn more money with which to buy better kit. I would like to introduce some similar mode to CW down the line, to provide a 'long war' alternative to the shorter realistic campaigns.

[lordroel]

I am wonder will the Soviet Mil Mi-14 (Haze) Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) helicopter be land based ore deployed on board a ship as it is much larger than the Kamov Ka-27 ASW helicopter.

[The Bandit]

I personally like more options. The problem with US torpedoes of the period is that while they run from Mk27 through Mk48, almost all of them are crap or did not enter service. You could use tactical nukes in Strike Fighters, but they were always an 'I win'-button. I found it was much more interesting to try out things like fitting AIM-9's to the F-101's and see how they handled against the migs.

One option for the Mk45 to make it more tactically interesting would be giving it a Mk37 mod 0 guidance package, which is essentially an active/passive homer with no wire guidance capability.

At times I wonder if we should move to a renown system similar to SH that lets you 'buy' the appropriate weapons for your boat within what you can afford. If you want better stuff, have to earn it. While more realistic, the current time penalty doesn't really impose the same restrictions.

Strike Fighters had the option to play as mercenaries, where you literally had to earn your weapons, learning to use the cheaper weapons while attacking targets of opportunity to earn more money with which to buy better kit. I would like to introduce some similar mode to CW down the line, to provide a 'long war' alternative to the shorter realistic campaigns.

Renown could probably work very well but, personally I'm more in favor of like game-controlled unlock system (instead of deciding to spend X amount of points for this thing you want which costs Y the game just gives you access to things once you pass certain milestones, although then you still have the problem of how to deal with cost/scarcity of individual items. There's also the issue of availability (i.e. not "right away" but maybe a month or so in).

I like the "mk 37 mod 0" idea because that's probably the simplest "off-the-shelf" sensor that was available and they'd probably have surplus parts for those since many of them were being converted to Mod 3s. There would be a notable speed hit though going to a heavy Mk 16 torpedo (760 lbs. in the Mod 9 Variant which I'm going to assume what would be in use in 68 vs. the 311 pound weight of the W-34 warhead.) but I think that the MK 37 unit would be pretty much right at home at 330 lbs (pretty sure that's what was going to be used in the "Freedom Torpedo" as well.

I'd still wager that the Mk 37C would probably perform better (longer range and better guidance as compared to the 45's higher top-speed) and be built from similar off-the shelf parts (probably quite a few Mk 46 torpedos kicking around, other than fabricating the mounts for the -46 sourced parts that was basically it as far as propulsion was concerned for the C, although the C did have a different guidance package) but that may not be a good thing.

[Julhelm]

One option for the 45 is to give it a really high cost in time to equip. I have 120 minutes but a more reasonable might be 8 to 12h taking into account they have to take out the ASTOR and switch out the relevant parts along with rewiring etc.

[The Bandit]

One option for the 45 is to give it a really high cost in time to equip. I have 120 minutes but a more reasonable might be 8 to 12h taking into account they have to take out the ASTOR and switch out the relevant parts along with rewiring etc.

I think that sounds good for simplicity sake rather than implementing some kind of logistics system driven around one type of weapon.

The more I think about the idea of the conventional 45 though, the more I like it, especially without the wire, its going to be a close range weapon that will pretty much be a "silver bullet" for Victor I encounters.

[xXNightEagleXx]

I mean i don't even see the point of coming here to complain about the new features if you will still be able to do what has been done until now.
If the game is about simulating the captain role, then controlling the sub by instructions is certainly an addition since it is what a captain does in real life.
BTW, there was circumstances where i wanted to fine control the sub but way more circumstances where having to manually control the sub actually made me lost focus on my main duty as a Captain, which is take decision.

[Shadow]

Frankly, it is completely unrealistic and cannot be defended as anything other than an easy/cheat-mode in the 1968 environment.

Isn't the plot that it is the SOVIETS that are suddenly attacking the Americans? Why then would the Americans be able to suddenly have the advantage (isn't having superior silencing enough) of superior torpedoes (SET-65 class performance, slightly better seeking, and wire guidance)?

I understand a lot of people are struggling to put those useless Mark 37s against submarines (it doesn't help that I've modded my Novembers up to 31 knots), but still, surely the solution isn't to hand out another crutch.

If we are to have this torpedo, can we at least give it some real weaknesses? Maybe the seeker sensitivity can be only something like 300m as a "speed-penalty" to what must have been a very similar seeker to the Mark 37, which will make it a useful toy while not quite rendering the original torpedoes irrelevant?
Some nuance is required, for sure, to prevent it from practically removing the Mk 37 from the game.

One option is, as Julhelm suggested, to increase the equipping time at port for the Mk 45. It's the easiest path from the implementation standpoint, since it works with already established mechanics.

But perhaps something more involved is required, and more gradual deployment in general. The campaign begins with a sudden Soviet invasion, which means the Mk 45 would not really be available right off the bat. I'd say it'd start trickling down the logistics chain after a few weeks, available in very limited numbers at first but eventually becoming more common.

Of course, that requires some development, sort of similar to Silent Hunter's tech progression. As a system, it'd have Cold Waters veer from strict historicity, perhaps, but if the US were fighting a major war with USSR, probably both sides would redouble their efforts to bridge the gaps in their performance. It really can't be assumed technological progress would've run its historical peacetime course.

[SeaCadt07]

Towed array displayed in 3d and control to deploy/retrieve... This sounds cool. But also need to make sure game gives you a good reason to retrieve it sometimes.

[Wiz33]

Towed array displayed in 3d and control to deploy/retrieve... This sounds cool. But also need to make sure game gives you a good reason to retrieve it sometimes.

You need to retrieve it before any high speed run or you can tear it off. So you would usually retract it before you start an engagement in case you haveto evade counterfire.

[LeopardDriver]

You need to retrieve it before any high speed run or you can tear it off. So you would usually retract it before you start an engagement in case you haveto evade counterfire.

Or when you dive so deep that you almost touch the ground.

[The Bandit]

I'm wondering if there will be any of the non-retractable "point arrays" simulated, as far as I know, everything that came before TB-16 (namely BQR-15 and 25) had to be clipped on by a tug or tender when heading out to sea and clipped off when entering port.

While the constant speed restrictions may be untenable for game-play, it would give you a choice in terms of "Is it worth having the Towed Array or do I want to be fast?"

[Delgard]

Shallow water OPS? Seems I am always in shallow water. Letting the towed array drag seems not a good thing.

[jmr]

I don't have a quote handy but I did catch a post stating that the game will still retain the option for players to manually drive their boats.

[Shadow]

I don't have a quote handy but I did catch a post stating that the game will still retain the option for players to manually drive their boats.
Yeah. It's been said several times so far that the new navigation options will coexist with the manual ones. So it's a win-win.

[609_Avatar]

I don't have a quote handy but I did catch a post stating that the game will still retain the option for players to manually drive their boats.

Well that was pretty smart of them! Good on ya KF. :Kaleun_Cheers:

[Shadriss]

You need to retrieve it before any high speed run or you can tear it off. So you would usually retract it before you start an engagement in case you haveto evade counterfire.

This is incorrect. All TAs are capable of remaining deployed at all ship speeds... for exactly the reason you state concerning torpedo evasion. The process for retrieving takes about 10 to 15 minutes from fully deployed to fully stowed. Now, you will be functionally deaf at high speeds, and the newer thin-line systems don't like staying out at high speeds for extended periods of time, but they will NOT tear off.

Or when you dive so deep that you almost touch the ground.

This, however, is a truism. TA on ground = BAD.

I'm wondering if there will be any of the non-retractable "point arrays" simulated, as far as I know, everything that came before TB-16 (namely BQR-15 and 25) had to be clipped on by a tug or tender when heading out to sea and clipped off when entering port.

Incorrect. As an example, the SPALT-9080 (BQQ-9) TA system originally used on OHIOs were not clip-ons. Not in the way you suggest, anyhow. It did require that we surface, send a team topside to make the physical and electrical connection, then dive the ship again (STUPID DESIGN!), but it did not require a tug or tender... just time, guts, and hopefully smooth seas. The array was still stowed in the ship's superstructure, and once connected was deployed just like the TB-16 or -23.

Shallow water OPS? Seems I am always in shallow water. Letting the towed array drag seems not a good thing.

I'll one-up you there - it doesn't SEEM to not be a good thing... it IS not a good thing. Is very bad to drag ADM Uptisquats Towed Array.... is VERY bad.

[The Bandit]

Incorrect. As an example, the SPALT-9080 (BQQ-9) TA system originally used on OHIOs were not clip-ons. Not in the way you suggest, anyhow. It did require that we surface, send a team topside to make the physical and electrical connection, then dive the ship again (STUPID DESIGN!), but it did not require a tug or tender... just time, guts, and hopefully smooth seas. The array was still stowed in the ship's superstructure, and once connected was deployed just like the TB-16 or -23.

Hm, trying to remember where I got that from. I remember reading that's how the older British 2046 TA worked, and that they got the design from the Americans but the method wasn't well liked because of the limits it introduced. I understand that shark-bites were also a problem.

Aside from possibly losing it on the bottom, I imagine it would probably be important WHERE it was lost, I can't imagine anybody being too thrilled with a gift like that being left off Murmansk ect. At the same time, I do recall HMS Conqueror being reportedly involved in a secret op to steal a Soviet TA with a "cow-catcher" type assembly added to the bow of the boat, I could easily see the Soviets trying to do the same thing (I think they did that to a frigate at some point if I'm not mistaken).

One thing I would propose though, because I think it would make for a great addition to the game, at the initial "contact encounter" screen before the battle starts (where you can choose to close range and what not) I think that it would be good if we could pick the state of the TA here (streamed or stowed) as well as being told about the depth under the keel to help you make your decision.

[Julhelm]

US Submarines since 1945 states that the reason the USN went for the retractable design was experience with the clip-ons getting damaged by extended high-speed runs (such as transiting the Pacific) and particularily shark bites.

[Shadriss]

I understand that shark-bites were also a problem.

And still is. When I worked at IMF in Bangor, WA, I worked in the TA shop, and there is still (best of my knowledge) a collection of shark teeth that have been pulled from TB-16 arrays over the years. They sometimes still come home with arrays that have been torn to shreds.

One thing I would propose though, because I think it would make for a great addition to the game, at the initial "contact encounter" screen before the battle starts (where you can choose to close range and what not) I think that it would be good if we could pick the state of the TA here (streamed or stowed) as well as being told about the depth under the keel to help you make your decision.

This makes sense to me... or barring that, set up the scenarios to ensure adequate depth for the TA droop (assuming that they are modeling that) to keep it off the bottom of any problem you may be in.

US Submarines since 1945 states that the reason the USN went for the retractable design was experience with the clip-ons getting damaged by extended high-speed runs (such as transiting the Pacific) and particularily shark bites.

My experience with the 'clip-on' array was fairly limited... for obvious reasons, we didn't like to put that thing out. The risk in both deployment and retrieval was not insignificant. By the time I hit my second OHIO, they were all but already gone and replaced by inboard TB-23 deployment systems, so I can't really speak to how well those systems handled high speed ops, just the ones in use for the '16 and '23.

And yes. Shark bites are, were, and will likely always be a problem with Towed Arrays.

[Julhelm]

The towed array already stops working if you're less than 200ft off the bottom, the assumption being it is being dragged. Now you can abstract that as it being retrieved if you want to, since it does not actually render (still haven't figured out a way to do so that doesn't have huge issues). Disallowing the array because shallow waters, I don't particularily feel like penalizing the player just because combat takes place in the shallows.

People are already having trouble understanding why running into enemy groups at flank speed starts them off in a disadvantageous position in combat.

[The Bandit]

The towed array already stops working if you're less than 200ft off the bottom, the assumption being it is being dragged. Now you can abstract that as it being retrieved if you want to, since it does not actually render (still haven't figured out a way to do so that doesn't have huge issues). Disallowing the array because shallow waters, I don't particularily feel like penalizing the player just because combat takes place in the shallows.

People are already having trouble understanding why running into enemy groups at flank speed starts them off in a disadvantageous position in combat.

Yeah I completely get where you're coming from, and understand why you wouldn't want something like that wasn't really what I had in mind to completely disallow it, just give the player some control over its state heading into combat, much like you can pick your engagement range or go over your torpedo load-out / tube configuration.

I hate to always keep looking back to it (since it is a different game) but, I was just figuring that the TA would be done somewhere along the same lines as Sub Command / DW where you could stream it or reel it in as needed.

I may be in the minority here as well but, while I'd like to see the TA, not being able to really doesn't bother me too much because I think even if we could visualize it, it may not be easy for it to look "natural" (as in all kinds of abrupt angles vs. something that is floating with slack in it)

[Capt Jack Harkness]

All kinds of abrupt angles is what I remember the TA looking like in DW...

[Shadow]

Oh, one suggestion. I don't know if it's been changed lately, but it'd be nice if campaign missions began with a weak, possibly faded contact in the bearing the engagement screen showed. Distance could be completely off, but I'd like but a direction.

Can't remember how many times I've started a mission in a hurry, forgetting to check the contact's bearing on the aforementioned screen and then having no clue where to look once in-mission. May not be much of an issue aboard a Los Angeles, but it's a completely different scenario driving a Skipjack in '68. Particularly against enemy subs.

[Shadriss]

It's an issue with the '88s as well. I've done that same thing a number of times as well. A reviewable message log might address that problem as well.

[Templar_4450th]

Wasn't the original mod of the NT-37 completed by 1967? Basically just a Mk37 with Otto fuel engine... effective range of 15,000y at 36knt. If that thing was available I wouldn't even consider the Mk45. In a "SHTF" cold war gone hot scenario such a weapon (or field mods) would likely be fast-tracked if it was deemed that current weapons were behind the curve.

Website with some decent info on post-ww2 US torps:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_PostWWII.php

EDIT: Scratch that, just found documentation stating that the Mk37 was being tested with the otto fuel engine in 1968... so at the start of the in-game 1968 campaign it wouldn't have even come close to deployment even with rising tensions pushing development.

[The Bandit]

EDIT: Scratch that, just found documentation stating that the Mk37 was being tested with the otto fuel engine in 1968... so at the start of the in-game 1968 campaign it wouldn't have even come close to deployment even with rising tensions pushing development.

Well there are a few things here. You are correct the 37C was under testing until 1973, but from what I've read it wasn't really favored by the Navy because full-scale procurement probably would have jeopardized the Mk 48 program which was vastly more capable (and probably quite a bit more expensive).

The other thing is, the 37C was designed as a kit, to be shipped out as parts and installed on existing Mk 37 torpedoes either pier-side or probably even aboard tenders (vs sending whole weapons back to the manufacturer). On top of this a lot of the parts it used (namely the engine of the Mk 46) was stuff that was already in inventory. Not to say that they could have had it done in a weekend but I think that they could have had it out before 73 had they felt they needed to.

There was also a guidance update that came along with the otto engine and while this was probably a good improvement over the Mk 37, I think if that had been omitted it probably would have reduced the development time as well.

[Topo65]

Check this update info about 1.07! Greats news!
Version 1.07
In Progress

Version 1.07 is a major re-working of the user interface and finalising of the crew voices. Note that additional ships, weapons and helicopters have been removed for now while we focus on getting the GUI tested and deployed.

The new GUI functionality is mostly redundant such that Cold Waters can be played predominately from the keyboard as it was prior to 1.07. Access to the new GUI functionality is via tabs which are minimsed by default with the exception of weapon buttons which now appear on the Weapons panel and the Periscope/ESM toolbar which auto appears once masts are raised.

General
Removed LogVoiceVolume from default/hud/default.txt
Added options slider for crew voice volume
Added option for tooltips on/off (default on)

Combat
AI firing missile, torpedo, mortar, shell or depth bomb drops out of time compression
config.txt MAD sensor range decreased to 400 yards
Added status icons for auto depth and course changes
Stores renamed to Weapons and redesigned
Buttons corresponding to most keys added
Tooltips added across all GUI buttons
Optional sim-like navigation commands added

New combat GUI Features:
New tabs for Helm, Dive and Sensors toolbars
Set speed to individual knot value
Direct telegraph
Plot course via map way point
Move submarine to depth in 50 ft increments
Move submarine to periscope depth
Emergency Deep - sets planes/ballast to max down and flank speed
Redesigned ESM meter
Masts toolbar added which appears once periscope or ESM mast is raised
Fully expanded and scrolling message log

Edits to game data files:
dictionary_message_log.txt has been completely overhauled in conjunction with new audio file names.



:up:

[PacificWolf]

Did everyone just gloss over this part?




Combat
Direct telegraph and set course via map waypoint added
Set depth, periscope depth and emergency blow toolbar added
dictionary_message_log.txt added:

NavigationWaypointInfo=Set Course HEADING: <BRG> NavigationSetCourse=Conn, new course set, heading <BRG> NavigationSetDepth=Conn, changing depth to <DEPTH> <FEET> NavigationSetPeriscopeDepth=Conn, coming to periscope depth NavigationLevelOut=Conn, leveling the boat



Not really what I wanted personally, but I do gather that most of the community will be happy about it.

And this:
Towed array displayed in 3D, ability to extend and withdraw.:yeah:

[Killerfish Games]

Version 1.07b is now available on the beta branch. See this thread for more info:
http://steamcommunity.com/app/541210/discussions/0/2183537632740192385/

[Topo65]

Yes! AMAZING WORK! Look and listen incredible! Thanks! :up::up::up::up::up::up:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Auto-steering has arrived. Since it has arrived, I decided I might as well try it. It's nice to see that at least there are still real advantages to steering the thing by yourself, since the automatic control is not very aggressive (even for large depth changes it only goes up to about 10 degree planes or so) so you probably aren't going to dodge torps that way. I also like the fact the auto-recovery functionality is not very good, so you can't expect it to save you from your own aggressive maneuvers with any efficiency.

But since we are having a set course tooltip that doubles as a bearing counter anyway, perhaps it can also have range to the selected point?

[Delgard]

Great changes!

[veenee]

absolutely love the changes so far, after just one quick mission, thanks!

[jrolson]

Amazing update! Thank you Killerfish Games.

Now we just need those 3D towed arrays. :03:

[jack33]

Thank you Killerfish Games

[PacificWolf]

Keep up the amazing work, great patch:Kaleun_Applaud:

[zachanscom]

awesome. patiently awaiting model upgrades. poly count needs doubling for rounded sub hulls tbh. also soviet subs need an overhaul especially when soviet campaign comes. willing to pay srs

[andyboydinomon]

Awesome update! Lots of great improvements...

Be careful if you have modded your hud/default file. All of the new buttons and windows will be white boxes instead of the new graphic controls.

In port during campaigns , the load times on the weapons screen overlap alittle with the vls tube numbers and names....minor probably an easy fix.

Haven't noticed any other bugs yet. The us subs vessel txt files have been updated (according to the date and time stamp on the file) but can not figure out what has changed. Anyone notice anything???

[GeneralGamer]

This is an awesome update allowing a one click to periscope depth, as well as a course plot. There are other great additions to the UI and too many to mention.

Thanks to Killerfish for always improving!!!:Kaleun_Cheers:

[Lommax]

Killerfish is really keeping it on point with this game. Love it!

[Aktungbby]

Lommax!:Kaleun_Salute:

[Mac2336]

A great update.

[Jasonland77]

Like the changes with 1.07:subsim::subsim:

[thereddaikon]

Fantastic update guys! Lots of great new features the community has been asking for. One thing I've noticed for awhile, not sure if it's a bug or simply an oversight but when I start a new campaign the dates on the news headlines have always been the same. Seems like a lot of events to happen in one day. I assume the buildup to war is supposed to happen over a few months?

[Capt Jack Harkness]

awesome. patiently awaiting model upgrades. poly count needs doubling for rounded sub hulls tbh. also soviet subs need an overhaul especially when soviet campaign comes. willing to pay srs
Agreed. They've done a great job so far but a high poly/high res pack would be awesome. It's weird though that the surface ships look great aside from their props and the subs just look meh...

[silvertree88]

Great update keep up the good work

[Julhelm]

I've been remastering a few of the player subs lately, but it's not like there's a huge amount of detail on (submerged) submarines anyway. That and when increasing the polycount, it takes longer to build the models. So there's a trade-off here. Same reason we never bothered with a 3D interior.

[Topo65]

@Julhelm (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/member.php?u=233022): Any chance to add a clock in combat interface? I think will be a very important element for tactics.

Thanks! :salute:

[Hawkbill Arriving]

On the boat that i was on we had the both the towed and the thinline arrays I dont recall any sharks trying to bite them what i do remember is that they had some boyency just to keep them from running afoul of the screw but even so you wouldnt want to do a hard right rudder with a down bubble. and chew on the array with the prop.:wah:

[Swordsman422]

The new interface in 1.07 is awesome. Very convenient to be able to order a depth and course but also be able to drive the sub myself when I need to evade torpedoes.

One thing I would request that has actually made the 1984 campaign a touch frustrating. The Close To option for starting encounters, even 25kyards is a little too close. In a lot of cases I already have the enemy units IDed and at this range I may as well start shooting before I have a polished solution. If the maximum range could be bumped to 40kyards, it would increase the hunting and tactical considerations I'd have to perform. I'm already on the hard difficulty.

I'm loving the 1968 campaign. I'm running in a Thresher/Permit right now. Once you get the trick down of closing in the baffles of an enemy submarine, it's almost child's play sneaking up to <1Kyards and putting a couple Mk. 37's up a November's backside. D/E boats are more challenging. They tend to clear baffles A LOT and sneaking up on them while they run on batteries is tricky.

I look forward to the DLCs. I hope some day we might see a 1962 campaign with the USS Nautilus, USS Seawolf, Skate- and Barbel-classes, and GUPPY conversion D/E boats. I'm also hoping in the future that some of the random encounters in the campaign might be friendly units. Maybe you're waiting on the Norwegian coast for a Soviet amphib force to ride by and you have a sonar contact. After entering the encounter alert and ready to fight, you discover that it's just a Swedish Sjoormen- or Norwegian Kobben-class boat lurking in wait for the same target.

All in all, I'm really having a lot of fun. I've been waiting for a submarine game like this for a long time. Silent Hunter 4 was too early and Dangerous Waters was too late. This one has replaced both on my HDD. Thanks for creating it!

[Aktungbby]

Hawkbill Arriving!:Kaleun_Salute: Swordsman422!:Kaleun_Salute: Jasonland77! :Kaleun_Salute: Silvertree88!:Kaleun_Salute: & Mack2336!:Kaleun_Salute:

[THEBERBSTER]

A Warm Welcome To The Subsim Community To The Following > Hawkbill Arriving > Swordsman422 > Jasonland77 > Silvertree88 > Mack2336
Subsim <> How To Donate <> See The Benefits <> Support The Community (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2027002&postcount=1)

[Swordsman422]

Lol. Thanks for the welcome. Believe it or not, I've been coming to Subsim.com since at least the Virtual Sailor forum and following Mike Hense's indy subsim. After a couple years of inactivity, my old account must have gotten deleted, since I came to log in a few days ago to look at Cold Waters stuff and my retrieve password email was invalid. No biggie. I'm glad there is something to finally draw me back.