Where Cold Waters Drops the Ball

[GoldenRivet]

I love killerfish games, and on the whole i have enjoyed playing cold waters. huge fan of Atlantic Fleet.

but IMHO, Cold Waters loses a lot of its playability in the fact that largely, it is a torpedo dodging simulator.

Where i have always been a fan of Subsims is in the cat and mouse element of the game, sneaking around, avoiding detection, being found, throwing them off the trail and repeating the process.

It seems Cold Waters is a constant and repetitive case of 1. Spawn 2. Detect the enemy 3. Enemy detects you 4. everyone fills the sea with torpedoes and we all run for our lives

initially, i chocked it up to my own experience level, rookie mistakes getting me detected etc.

but then i realized, more often than not... I am being detected within 30 seconds of spawning out.

"launch transient bearing 340°" is something that is then repeated on the order of a dozen times, and i find myself spending the next ten minutes of play time desperately maneuvering to avoid a gambit of deadly enemy weapons, while trying to slow my speed enough during this twisting, turning, diving and ascending melee so i can fire off a single blind snapshot in the direction of my enemy.

now bear in mind, Im no casual subsimmer. I've experienced the mechanics of subsims good and bad since these games were barely a 2D three color interface, so i am no stranger to low aspect ratio, thermal layers, sound propagation etc. and, in Cold Waters, i feel that i have figured out pretty well how to "steer" my torpedoes to places afar before turning them in on surface groups to "trick" them into thinking the shot was fired from over there instead of over here.

but i find that often, with Cold Waters, I barely have time to issue my first orders after spawning before active sonar bombards me from 6 different directions, and weapons of every caliber are brought to bear on my position with stunning accuracy.

and dont get me started on airplanes. I could be near the bottom at 1800 ft deep, ultra quiet, 1 knot ahead creep speed... depth charge, right down the hatch

If cold waters is even 10% a reflection of the reality of modern submarine warfare... i contend that when WWIII opens up, the naval element will be decided in a matter of 60 minutes or less, globally. :har:

after some time away from home for work, i fired it up last night...

then i said to my wife "Now i remember why i stopped playing this game"

[Bilge_Rat]

I hear you,....but have you tried the latest Beta?

seems to be a lot easier to avoid detection in the new china campaign and even going back to the 1968 campaign I noticed an improvement.

[GoldenRivet]

Well i thought this had been solved when I opted into the beta a some months back, but i had to leave town for an extended period, when i got back i opted out of the beta because i had heard through the grapevine that there was a seawolf class in the latest update, and for some reason Steam was not updating Cold Waters while opted into beta.

I disabled Beta and it updated immediately. :doh:

when i was originally in the beta it did seem harder to be detected, and i noticed a huge drop in the "torpedo spam"

but today i played "Junks on Parade", fired an ADCAP way off away from the surface group, then turned it toward them, initially they fired at the direction the torpedo activated from which was nowhere close to me, so i thought i had it ironed out. Sank an escort, repeated the process, but this time i ended up with torpedoes of every shape and size falling into the sea literally right above my conning tower. (7 in total) i mean... right on top of me. not 1000 yards in one direction or another, i mean these guys were sinking a hole in one from 20K yards away, and they were doing it consistently, which tells me they had to have A) known exactly where my sub was located and B) had a 100% accurate firing solution on me at all times

and the waters here arent 180-200 ft deep which leaves NO room for outmaneuvering enemy torpedoes. So the minute you are detected you best be preparing your own eulogy. We all know, even as WW1 Subsim skippers, never go into shallow waters. (that phrase has been said a million and one times in the Silent Hunter III IV and V threads alone) the risk of taking your multi billion dollar submarine into these areas would far outweigh any potential strategic benefit in doing so. It would be like wearing snow cammo in the middle of a barren desert devoid of all cover while trying to sneak up on 5 armed men while yourself carrying only a knife. foolish

torpedo spam is something Cold Waters has never been able to address.

I dunno, maybe if a surface group escorting high value merchants or high value warships would risk it all and fill the immediate area with torpedoes? im not familiar with SOP in this regard. Seems that the risk of collateral damage would be *extreme* in real life.

and often, there is a ton of Collateral damage in Cold Waters.

"Stalking the Red Bear" - all i have to do is twitch, and every enemy sub on the map releases every tube they have. i immediately spawn into a literal sea of active sonar pings. I just laugh and wait... i guarantee half the group will be sunk by friendly fire. most often the result is them sinking their own Typhoon they are supposed to be protecting :har: I have won this mission MANY times by doing nothing more than cruising around at flank speed - not a single shot fired.

I cannot get behind the AI and torpedo spam culture of this game. it takes so much away from the realism and fun of play its unreal

[Badger343rd]

Agreed...they need to shoot for something halfway between subcommand and what cold waters is. Make it more about the hunt rather than evasion. Give us sonar stations to work from.

[Julhelm]

I've been told from submariners that saturating the area with fire is about what they expected from a surface group that has trouble detecting the submarine to begin with. And it's not that different from a WW2 escort screen saturating your position with depth charge barrages.

During the Cold War the homing torpedoes were considered to have such low PK that standard doctrine was to use a nuclear tipped depth bomb.

The aircraft have passive and active sonobouys as well as MAD. They can drop a field of passive bouys and you will not be aware that you've been counterdetected until they drop a torpedo on you. Remember that you have to perform TMA while the surface group only needs two good bearings with enough geographical separation to get an instant fix on your position, courtesy of datalinks.

Consider Fleet Command where often the first indication of a submarine is torpedoes coming out of nowhere, and so the reaction is to send what helicopters and aircraft you have to drop sonobouys in the direction of the reciprocal bearing. The Cold Waters AI does the same. When it detects incoming weapons, it estimates a distance where it thinks they originated from, then brackets that area with missiles or fire a salvo down the reciprocal bearing. It is entirely possible to counter this behavior by doglegging your own torpedoes, and shoot from 15-20.000 yards.

If you ever played Fast Attack, there are several scenarios in that sim where aircraft will drop large numbers of airdropped torpedoes on your position.

To counter aircraft, you can use the MOSS decoys as a contact breaker.

[GoldenRivet]

Its a consistency issue with the AI.

Went back and repeated my tactic on Junks on Parade.

obliterated their surface group and this time they never knew what hit them :06:

never even put a torpedo within miles of me.

doubt they could have detected salt in the water. :O:

i did nothing differently than i did in the first run. so what gives?

why is it that in two virtually identical engagements, the enemy AI is flawless and super-saturates my area with torpedoes and depth charges, and in the next i take out their entire fleet without so much as a glance in my direction?

EDIT:

i understand that AI is probably the hardest thing to simulate and get ironed out in any game, its just hard to replicate human behavior in a simulator, let alone the human behavior of a whole crew

[Julhelm]

I think a lot comes down to being detected early by MPA or helicopters. Sometimes you just have bad luck. The single missions have a nasty tendency of spawning too close to the enemies. Try using the close-to button instead.

[GoldenRivet]

dont anybody get me wrong.

Cold Waters is fun. This is my only complaint about an otherwise excellent game.

If you get a good starting position you'll rock and roll, but it only takes one out of place parameter or bad shot and your arse is grass and the enemy is the lawn mower :D

[Julhelm]

In the campaign missions you can usually choose where to engage the enemy, which makes a huge difference. The single missions are much more randomly generated for variety - there are no prescripted positions or parameters like in DW or Silent Hunter. The only exception being the land strikes and insertions.

[Rufus Shinra]

"Stalking the Red Bear" - all i have to do is twitch, and every enemy sub on the map releases every tube they have. i immediately spawn into a literal sea of active sonar pings. I just laugh and wait... i guarantee half the group will be sunk by friendly fire. most often the result is them sinking their own Typhoon they are supposed to be protecting :har: I have won this mission MANY times by doing nothing more than cruising around at flank speed - not a single shot fired.
Are you kidding?

*tries it*

OK, that was hilarious. My skipper is probably going to receive everys single military accounting heroism medal ever stamped for this. Two Sierra, one Victor III and one Typhoon at zero cost for the taxpayer. This feels dirty.

[GoldenRivet]

Well, i have played several missions in the campaign, and i will admit, i have had much better luck at attack and evasion in the campaign than the single missions.

unfortunate for me that most of the time i have to play on the PC anymore is limited to a span of minutes rather than hours, so single missions are generally where i spend most of my time.

but - i did find some time this afternoon to run through a few campaign missions, and i would say that most of the time... they had no clue where i was or only eventually located me with a wide margin of accuracy and forced me to cat and mouse away.

[Julhelm]

The campaign autosaves between encounters so don't feel afraid of taking it on.

[Bilge_Rat]

so after spending sometimes with the China campaign in version 1.12/1.13, the game does feel much improved.

the problem of being instantly detected at mission start seems to have been quashed. It is now much easier to remain undetected, depending of course on the tactical situation.

[Mspot]

I, too, have been playing video games since the late 1980's -- PC, console, arcade, you name it.

As with the so called shooter games, none of the video games, no matter how they are presented, are realistic. There are elements of realism, and so called immersive features.

This game, as with all I've ever played, is not realistic. It does have, however, elements of realism and immersion.

As perhaps one of the greatest producers of video games noted [Tom Clancy], you have to find a balance between realism and play-ability. Too much of one or the other will only appeal to one, usually small, segment.

No matter what a producer or developer does, everyone will not be happy with the outcome.

In terms of the so called flaws and bugs in this game, I have found my share but they are comparatively far and few between -- flaws and bugs, usually, fixed post haste by this game's developers. A rare find, indeed.

While there could be a number of enhancements and improvements to this game, as with most titles, I am, for the most part, happy with this game. It hearkens to an older age of gaming with a newer age of visuals.

If you can't or don't understand the many nuances that many on this board refer to as bugs, or whatever terminology you are using, that is because you are trying to compare a Tom Clancy-esque type game with a Jane's game. You can't. And, sometimes **** just happens in this game as it might actually occur in real life. Ditto the shooter games -- which most people, like the sub sims, have have no actual time in. So, to gripe endlessly, as some do, just illustrates their ignorance and Pampers heritage.

Finally, this is one of the very few modern games I can play while multi-tasking on a low to mid-end gaming laptop. And it still looks, sounds, and performs great!

I, for one, truly appreciate what the producer and developers of this game have done. Until the release of this game, I thought fun, good looking sub sims was a thing of the past, and or that any new sub sim would require the latest in computing hardware, as so many of the newest titles do -- if you want to experience a fluid, good looking game.

We all have things we would like to see changed. Make those duly noted. But how about not coming off as though they created a 2nd-rate piece of crap that never gets it right.

Wow...rant over.

[Bilge_Rat]

yes, agreed. I was not sure at first what to think of this game since at first glance, it seems to lack the depth of say "Dangerous Waters", but this game does grow on you and it has the right mix of realism and playability to be both a interesting simulation and really fun to play.

The Dev support is also exceptional, which is always a big factor for me. :up:

[bstanko6]

I kinda wish there was a modern subsim that was more like SH series.

Modern sims are basically scenarios where SH is an experience. In the middle of transit I can walk around my boat, and check out the night sky. I'm not just moving an avatar around the ocean.

[Rufus Shinra]

I kinda wish there was a modern subsim that was more like SH series.

Modern sims are basically scenarios where SH is an experience. In the middle of transit I can walk around my boat, and check out the night sky. I'm not just moving an avatar around the ocean.
Yep. Silent Hunter is one hell of a good moment.

[SaltiDawg]

...

During the Cold War the homing torpedoes were considered to have such low PK that standard doctrine was to use a nuclear tipped depth bomb. ...


Obviously we are talking simulated doctrine here, but this is not the doctrine that we used during the Cold War. If we had simply "plopped" missiles and nuclear torps out there and FINEX-ed the excercise, this would not have provided any real world training for a NON-NUCLEAR escalation into wartime.


We always did ops using exercise non-nuclear weapons.

[Julhelm]

That makes perfect sense actually. However, I from what I've read, both sides thought they could wage a limited nuclear war at sea without escalating the overall conflict, to a greater extent than with land-based tactical nukes. What are your thoughts on this?

[SaltiDawg]

Just my personal opinion - at the time a lowly Lieutenant - but it was my belief that if either we or the Soviets starting using nuclear weapons that the ICBMs would have to be employed and my wife and family were home at one of the ground zeros.


That's a weighty burden, but it is one that anyone in those positions needed to look at and accept. Again, in my opinion.


It is a lot easier to shoot an exercise weapon at a target than to accept the notion that you just just killed 100 fellow Submariners - whatever their nationality.


When Kursk was lost, I was saddened for a significant period of time and indeed contributed to a Memorial. In my readings of WWII in the pacific there was an immediate gladness followed by a sense of remorse following the sinking of an enemy Submarine.

[nikimcbee]

Have you played it recently GR? I hadn't played it since it came out a year ago. I love the changes they made, I find it much more playable now. I had the same thought as you, plus I found the keyboard controls awkward, but with the new China campaign, I totally see the improvement to playability.

[Delgard]

SaltiDawg,
PRP required a strong set of morals, expressed by values. Teamwork in most cases was not due to the workload, but to not be alone in such a difficult situation. Focus on the exact moment and have faith. Faith relieves us of the burden.

[Geoff then]

Now, I have come across this detection issue quite a few times.


And I guess I am not the only one.
I get a sonar contact and order "close to 25kyards"
But when the action starts, the whole convoi of ships is about 10kyards away, and I am already in their active sonar range. And even before i could order anything, they already fired at me. This should not happen. I mean it is a fast closing surface group, not some silent-running submarine.
And sadly this occurs quite often. Mind you, I wasnt approaching fast, I was on "right-click mode" and when the sonar contact screen popped, I was at 5 knots.
So, what is this about?

[AllQuiet]

Its a consistency issue with the AI.....
i did nothing differently than i did in the first run. so what gives?

why is it that in two virtually identical engagements, the enemy AI is flawless and super-saturates my area with torpedoes and depth charges, and in the next i take out their entire fleet without so much as a glance in my direction?....
I wish to ask what the environment conditions were....and if you were running the oem JunksOParade or a modded mission. Check and see if your Junks mission file substitutes fixed weather conditions with random conditions. I feel certain the ducts and thermals varied, and wish to ask how you used the ducts/layers when you engaged/launched your attack.....

The modded files I installed shows that the author edited out most of the helo and airplane occurrences...but the campaigns still offer those threats.

I'm stumped on a simple matter where I construct a mission to include a Moskva, I have to also select whether or not I want a helo or airplane included in the event. I wish the developers would construct the coding that anytime a Moskva is part of an engagement, there is automatically helos in the area searching once an attack or a radio signal has been discovered.

[DicheBach]

I agree with OP, and this is with latest (unmodded) version of the game.

Some comments I made on the games Steam community discussion in this thread:
https://steamcommunity.com/app/541210/discussions/0/1368380934258244701/

I haven't played the game enough to critique it in earnest, and it is a wonderful game. But there are a few things about it, as a brand new player which rub me the wrong way . . . only one time compression value in the combat maps is one of those.

Long story short . . . I had a random encounter on my way to a mission and there were about three Soviet ships off the coast of Norway. Kited and killed a Foxtrot and the icons for a couple of trawlers were still lingering, though they were not "contacts." So I set off to bag those two. Probably 60k yards or more away to get to one of them, then back another long distance (probably 80 to 90k) in the opposite direction to the other one. With my LA running at 33 knots, and time compression on the minutes were just dragging by. I literally, got up, fixed my dogs dinner brought it to them, went to the bathroom, washed my hands, grabbed a coke, came back and I STILL had like 30,000 yards to go to get to the lingering trawler marker.

SH4 has like . . . I dunno 20 time compression settings and that was SO wonderful for that game.

I'm not crazy about the highly "episodic" nature of the game, a more sand-box campaign would tickle my fancy more.

If you guys never played Battle of Britain II: Wings of Victory, you should check it out. http://www.matrixgames.com/products/353/details/Battle.of.Britain.II.-.Wings.of.Victory

Mainly just to see the neat way it integrated a strategic level game and a tactical combat game all into one. Maybe something to think about for Cold Waters II ;)

Another thing that annoys me: encounters generally seem to occur at VERY close range, and the capacity to shape how an engagement begins using the campaign map interface seems rather limited.

To which a user called "Clivman" said: "For your last point- Use "Close To" to determine the range of ship engagement. Submarine engagement will always occur at short range because that's when you can detect them."

And I said:

"Submarine engagement will always occur at short range because that's when you can detect them."

That doesn't really make sense to me: The ships have a radar mast with 60,000 yd range, an ESM mast with effectively unlimited range, and depending on the scenario potentially myriad forms of supporting intelligence and detection assets which would ostensibly be available (satellites, aircraft, other ships, coastal positions). Visual detection obviously depends largely on atmospheric conditions, but could be as large as 10 or 12 nautical miles IIRC?

If I am crusing at 9 knots with my ESM mast up, while traversing on the campaign map, then ostensibly I should be able to detect enemies running active radar at 60,000+ yards.

With my active radar then ~60,000 yards . . .

Its like the game assumes the skipper is incompetent on the campaign map and is cruising either too fast to use sensors or is unable/unwilling to make use of his sensors while en route. Not to mention the complete absence of any potential to engage with other allied assets (sats, aircraft, other ships, etc.). Add to this that crew is not modeled at all, and the player character has no in-game characteristics that can develop as the game progresses and I think KillerFish have missed an enormous golden opportunity to enhance the games appeal and replayability to including a few common "RPG-like" and strategic elements into the campaign.

This is what I mean when I say I'm not crazy about the "episodic" nature of the game. The Campaign is effectively a string of "Scenarios" in which the "between episodes" practices of the skipper, as well as the practices while traversing to mission locations are largely irrelevant. Add to this that the campaign map is not zoomable, time is not compressable, the controls are a bit obscure, and options for how to prepare and situate your sub for an encounter are seemingly quite limited (or at best, obscure): These are all in my opinions the most egregious deficiencies in the game, which is not meant to be an "attack," because as I've already said the game is wonderful.

Room for improvement is all I'm saying, and excellent areas to explore for Part Deux.

A lot of this stuff is lightweight when it comes to the logic to run it and the assets to implement it, though granted, I imagine it can add a lot of complexity to Q&A.

It seems to me that the game's design focus is on engagements, not on the operational level where the campaign should be. A related issue is that, the tools on the campaign interface for the user to determine engagement ranges are, at best obscure. Even worse, 25,000 yards is apparently the largest range possible, and often even when 25,000 yards is chosen the actual ranges are less.

Someone said "torpedo dodging simulator" and sadly, with my current experience with the game, that seems pretty accurate.

[Julhelm]

60.000 yards is the maximum practical range to the horizon, but you have to remember that the submarines' radar and ESM reciever are mounted on small masts that protrude only a few feet above the surface of the water, thus drastically reducing the range at which detections can be made. If you surface the sub and raise the masts, you should be able to detect enemies out to max range, but submarines do not transit on the surface.

[CDR DPH]

It seems to me that the game's design focus is on engagements,

Yep, that's the focus in the Cold Waters game. The developers deliberately chose not to include much of the logistical work of transiting from place to place, setting up intercept positions or dealing with the time constraints of doing all the between missions stuff.

If you want a true sub simulator that incorporates those aspects of attack sub life, you'll need to find them elsewhere.

In this game, your targets are relatively close, go find them, identify them, then kill them and repeat.

Lamenting on the game aspects that don't match other game titles is kind of pointless as CW was never intended to duplicate a "real life" sub experience.

CW is a quick paced underwater first person shooter.

[DicheBach]

Yep, that's the focus in the Cold Waters game. The developers deliberately chose not to include much of the logistical work of transiting from place to place, setting up intercept positions or dealing with the time constraints of doing all the between missions stuff.

If you want a true sub simulator that incorporates those aspects of attack sub life, you'll need to find them elsewhere.

In this game, your targets are relatively close, go find them, identify them, then kill them and repeat.

Lamenting on the game aspects that don't match other game titles is kind of pointless as CW was never intended to duplicate a "real life" sub experience.

CW is a quick paced underwater first person shooter.

Oh I believe you, and it does seem clear that it is what the developers intended.

However, I disagree with you that it is "pointless," because if users do not express their lack of satisfaction with this sort of game design then they have no one to blame but themselves when they get more of it.

Certainly nothing wrong whatsoever with an "underwater first person shooter." But a game with all the capabilities to be that AND so much more, and which fails to provide both the former and the latter in two or more separate play modes is a shame IMO.

Like I said, seems a real missed golden opportunity. I for one will get about half or one third the use time out of the game because to me, (a) the params that control how the engagements unfold are stupid simply BECAUSE how an engagement initiates and unfolds SHOULD depend on the "in-between" engagement process; (b) the tools provided to make the stupidity of the engagements less unsavory are lacking (lack of moddability, one time compression setting).

[DicheBach]

60.000 yards is the maximum practical range to the horizon, but you have to remember that the submarines' radar and ESM reciever are mounted on small masts that protrude only a few feet above the surface of the water, thus drastically reducing the range at which detections can be made. If you surface the sub and raise the masts, you should be able to detect enemies out to max range, but submarines do not transit on the surface.

Is 25,000 yards the maximum range at which the ESM, radar masts of the ships in the game realistically could make contacts? If so, my bad for assuming 60,000 was tenable. Probably should've brushed up on my geodesics before I spouted off about that :)

Hmm
this wiki page on "horizon" is saying that the horizon from an eye view 1.7m above sea level is 5km!? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon) 5468 yards. I did not realize it was that close.

So I guess the fact that my SH4 crews routinely spot enemy contacts out to ~6 or (if memory serves) even 8 nautical miles (~16,000 yd) under ideal atmospheric conditions reflects the fact that those contacts have masts sticking up 10s of meters above sea level.

[Julhelm]

More likely your SH lookouts are spotting the smoke.

[CDR DPH]

However, I disagree with you that it is "pointless,"

More along the lines of buying a Volkswagen and then suggesting with a little more work it could be Porsche. While that statement may be true, the point of producing a VW or in this case Cold Waters was not to make a Porsche or a Silent Hunter variant.

Anything can be "so much more" but at some point developers say enough, that's all its going to be. I am of the opinion that CW is as fleshed out as it is ever going to get. At best we can hope for a better mission editor, perhaps the ability to import mesh designs for different subs and some of the minor outstanding issues polished up.

If you wish to tilt at windmills on every site you come across, that is your prerogative but I assume when doing so you realize that your horizon will not be getting much closer than it is now.

Hope springs eternal = denial in most cases.

You might enjoy the game more if you play it for what it is and not what you wish it was.

[DicheBach]

More likely your SH lookouts are spotting the smoke.

RIGHT! :D

Since CDR-PH is on a roll here with his patronizing me for offering you folks some constructive feedback, just let me offer some clarification.

Much respect for what you have achieved here. Wonderful game, well worth what I paid for it. Engrossing, engaging, well-balanced, excellent tutorials and reference materials, based on what little I know about the actual subject of the game, seems to be an excellent balance between realism and playability, app performs well, all the assets are good to excellent (voice, sounds, models, anims, textures, etc.). 8.75/10.

What would make it a 10/10?

Read my previous comments.

Given you guys are GAME DEVELOPERS and have been for quite some time, I'm honestly not too worried that my harsh feedback is going to cause you any undue stress or strain. I'm also quite confident that, you can weigh such feedback for what it is worth, i.e., (a) hmmm, this guy is so full of **** I can smell him through the screen < (b) hmmm, seems like some reasonable ideas, but who cares! We are already rolling in bank from the units we sold with the exact design we implemented! Why would we fix it if it ain't broke!? < (c) hmmm, you know he does make some good points, and this isn't the first time we've had this type of feedback. Maybe for next project we could take some of these points into mind from the ground up during design and maybe expand our market appeal a bit, maybe sell more units??

Now CDR here, sorry to get your panties in a wad bro :03:

[Berserker]

Cold waters maps..You cannot zoom in like sh4 and it makes it hard for those wih poor eyes to find out where the hell your
are supposed to go...

[bstanko6]

My issue is that CW is your typical run of the mill modern sub game that we seen before in SSN, 688i, DW, and so forth. You get a scenario, and you have to solve it. In CW at least you can move your sub around the world, and some options can effect your mission, but it is still lacking.

I like the SH series because it features a dynamic campaign, where how you begin it, and transit, and approach your patrol area can have an effect on your game.

*I want to see a hybrid of SH5 style immersion, walking your boat, interacting with your crew, starting from pier to zone.

*Then mix in some DW style game play, with more of a CW Russian story, than your typical US one.

*Then for your transit, you can have a Silent Steel like interaction or "scenario" situations pop up along with other mini game style interactions, where wrong answers can effect your long term game.

I dont like hearing no one will play that, because they said the same thing when SH1 came out. You cant say no one will buy it, because they said the same thing about SSN and SH3. Subsim alone is a built in audience that will play a game like this,a nd will wait a long time for it... jus tlook at UBOAT on Steam! I mean it is a typical German uboat game with the "Sims" game attached, and I know most of you as well as myself will buy it... why? because we are true nerds, and we love this crap!!!

With kickstarters and other ways of raising money, I know it can be done. We just need someone out there who is willing to take the time and make the game.

No more excuses, time for SH6! Cold War!

[GeneralGamer]

Cold waters maps..You cannot zoom in like sh4 and it makes it hard for those wih poor eyes to find out where the hell your
are supposed to go...


I agree. Zoom would be a fantastic addition to the main map. I heard CW is done with updates, but just one more.....update PLS:Kaleun_Applaud:

[DicheBach]

My issue is that CW is your typical run of the mill modern sub game that we seen before in SSN, 688i, DW, and so forth. You get a scenario, and you have to solve it. In CW at least you can move your sub around the world, and some options can effect your mission, but it is still lacking.

I like the SH series because it features a dynamic campaign, where how you begin it, and transit, and approach your patrol area can have an effect on your game.

*I want to see a hybrid of SH5 style immersion, walking your boat, interacting with your crew, starting from pier to zone.

*Then mix in some DW style game play, with more of a CW Russian story, than your typical US one.

*Then for your transit, you can have a Silent Steel like interaction or "scenario" situations pop up along with other mini game style interactions, where wrong answers can effect your long term game.

I dont like hearing no one will play that, because they said the same thing when SH1 came out. You cant say no one will buy it, because they said the same thing about SSN and SH3. Subsim alone is a built in audience that will play a game like this,a nd will wait a long time for it... jus tlook at UBOAT on Steam! I mean it is a typical German uboat game with the "Sims" game attached, and I know most of you as well as myself will buy it... why? because we are true nerds, and we love this crap!!!

With kickstarters and other ways of raising money, I know it can be done. We just need someone out there who is willing to take the time and make the game.

No more excuses, time for SH6! Cold War!

Hear! Hear!

Totally agree, though I cannot "blame" any developer for making the game they made, and that is not even part of my intent. Just to get a game to market which runs well and makes the developer a living earns me enormous respect, I do not intend to second guess their decisions.

With that said, as a user, if I imagine myself in the shoes of the developer, I like to think I would appreciate constructive feedback along the lines of "what would make me love this game even more long time . . ."

In addition to SH6 Cold War, I would like to see an SH6.5 Post-Cold War, and an SH6.75, Future War which explores hypothetical future developments in naval warfare.

[GoldenRivet]

I will say, i have learned that the enemy subs don't necessarily go active sonar until its reasonably certain they have detected you via passive sonar first. NOW

However, in past instances of the game, i find that it almost never matters where i am above or below the Strong layer / Strong Duct - whether i am ultra quiet and set for 2 knots there doesnt appear to be any rhyme or reason as to how well the enemy boats can hear me on passive sonar.

My frustrations have stemmed from being detected almost immediately when the mission starts. campaign, single mission, doesn't matter. More often than not, before i can even issue my first orders here it comes PING PING "con sonar, launch transient..." and within literally seconds, im in a fight for my life zigging and zagging at flank speed launching decoys and forming knuckles while evading seven or eight torpedoes. and all i had time to do was start the mission and order ultra quiet.

with the latest releases this has diminished a lot actually - i can now at least maneuver my boat into baffles at great range and catch up to the target before taking them out at knife fight range.

note*

in rigging for ultra quiet and ordering speed reduction to 2 knots you have to do it in a specific order.

if you order two knots THEN order ultra quiet - the water fall and your noise values react as if you are moving at 5 knots (since this is the default ultra quiet speed) even though you are still at 2 knots ordered.

However, if you order ultra quiet THEN order 2 knots, the noise values and water fall are at the actual 2 knots.

[NeonsStyle]

I just wish the game had first person, or at least an interior point of view.

I agree with many of your points. One of the best things I found in SH4 was being hunted by Destroyers, and you really got the feeling for when you were
found and when you were evading them. It was gripping. You can get a sense of that in CW however it's never gripping like it was in SH4.

I love Cold Waters, and loving making a series on it, however I just wish there was more to it. A global map would be awesome, or an ability to play as different nations. Having ships of BOTH sides present in the game would add a lot. Having to be concerned with friendly fire would help too.

It's just a shame it's not first person. :(


NeonsStyle

[johan_d]

1.15 or something, tried the tutorial, about torpedoes.
While 30 seconds in, reading some text on the screen my boat was hit by something flying in the air.

Edit: I understand now what they did, but its a bit fast for a tutorial..

[MrMojok69]

I've been a member here for about fifteen years or more, just haven't posted in a long time and all my old posts got lost somehow. But I came here to talk about this.

It's a really fun game, in my opinion. We must keep in mind that the devs are trying to make a product that is fun and cinematic, to maximize sales, but I think the game is very well-done overall. I'd like to see map-drawing tools, as many have mentioned.

For whatever reason, going back to 688 and Sub Command, I've always had an obsession with killing Alfas. I guess it's the top speed, depth, and titanium hull.

Anyway, tonight I had a hell of a fight with one. I had fired an active-homing torp, and a little behind that, a passive-homing torp. I think I learned that tactic from these very forums years ago. The active one comes in first and bangs away with pings he can hear, he deploys countermeasures and maneuvers, and then the passive one comes in behind and homes in on his cavitation.

Well, he ran up to 43 kts or whatever his top speed is, and then followed an absolutely amazing sequence that lasted about four minutes where I had both these torpedoes right on him, but he was constantly changing depth and course. I still had the wires and would switch from one torp to another, trying to harry him with one while the other ran out and looped around to come in for the kill.

I was cheating by looking in the F3 view and manually controlling the torpedoes, trying to guide them onto him, but it was incredible how many times one passed right over or under his hull. I got him eventually, but I tip my cap to that virtual Soviet sub captain. It was just an absolute thrill.

[johan_d]

Nice story.


I think the game will be much more difficult when you dont look at the 3D screen, and maximise the nav screen.

After all, thats what they see inside a real sub.. no lookie lookie outside.

[MrMojok69]

It's true, you are absolutely right. But the simple fact I've had to acknowledge over the past few days is that I'm just not very good at this game :haha:

I've realized it's best just to let the torpedoes do their own thing. But I don't think I could ever effectively evade airdropped torpedoes without using the 3D view. Hell I would have trouble evading most torps without the 3D view.

[johan_d]

You are further with the game then me, just scouting a bit around..


Sink em all!

[CDR DPH]

That's the truth isn't it - It is hard to avoid incoming fire you can't see on sonar approaching from behind when you are at flank speed.

The solution, don't draw fire. If playing without the 3D view you *must* dog-leg your shots, your *must* clear datum, you *must* carefully watch your sonar signature. Bugger any of these up and there is a good chance you will die.

Sometimes, against a force with some capable sub killer ships, you just have to accept that all you can reasonably hope to accomplish is dealing with your primary objective(s) and then get out of Dodge - while you still can.