Killing the game

[Orm]

It is usually said that only dumb never change mind. I would say that is what happened with me. That’s right, I changed my mind. Sometimes ago, I was defending strongly the Kilo, what I could call a missile boat, until I decided to switch to the Akula II as long as the infamous BB bug will not be fix by a new patch. Akula is rather similar to the Kilo, if we are talking about sonar screen and the use of the same missiles. And then, I discovered something very disturbing; the SS-N-27 is really killing this game, when playing MP session. Proud member of the community of the Seawolves, I noticed a pattern in the duration of our dives. From dives that often last 2 hours (of course it doesn’t mean that were good), we have nowadays dives that can last 14 min, or 10 min on weapons hold + 4 min on weapons free. Where is the fun in these kind of dives, where the fastest to shoot will mark a kill.
It is funny that a former Kilo driver and an Akula user talk like that but it is my feeling and worst, I am afraid that many peoples will lose interest in DW as long as Sonalysts will not do anything to reduce the supremacy of these missiles in this sim, e.g. acquisition range, precision of the rocket, over efficient AC TMA …
Do some of you think like me?

[Molon Labe]

Yeah, you're absolutely right. It's actually a combination of factors that's causing this. The auto TMA is the biggest offender. I was griping about the way it works from the day after I got DW. SCS doesn't seem the slightest bit concerned that the aTMA uses data other than what would be available to the player, or even that aTMA is updating targets for which no new data is generated (or example, ESM air contacts updating after being submerged for 30 minutes, or sub contacts updating when they are behind a seamount). I think part of the reason they don't care is just that there are a lot of people on this forum who don't care if the aTMA cheats, as long as it makes it easier for them to play... :damn:

Combine the cheating aTMA with super long-range torpedo acquisition and a 70 knot top speed... you end up with a game out of balance and unrealistic.

As far as playing with the Seawolves goes, I think the best way to handle the aTMA/SS-N-27 problem is either to play with manual TMA, or to play two games, switching subs for the second roung (or both). :shifty:


Edit:
I should point out that the LW/Ami mod changes this balance significantly. The dominance of acoustic conditions in determining detection ranges increases the American subs edge in relative detection range. Also, the shorter detection ranges mean that conventional torpedoes can close the gap much more quickly than they could before. The Type 40 has been removed in favor of a torpedo with a 55 knot top speed. The Shkval might actually be more dangerous than the -27 in this mod, at least in shallow water. :up:

[XabbaRus]

Yeah, you're absolutely right. It's actually a combination of factors that's causing this. The auto TMA is the biggest offender. I was griping about the way it works from the day after I got DW. SCS doesn't seem the slightest bit concerned that the aTMA uses data other than what would be available to the player, or even that aTMA is updating targets for which no new data is generated (or example, ESM air contacts updating after being submerged for 30 minutes, or sub contacts updating when they are behind a seamount). I think part of the reason they don't care is just that there are a lot of people on this forum who don't care if the aTMA cheats, as long as it makes it easier for them to play... :damn:

Combine the cheating aTMA with super long-range torpedo acquisition and a 70 knot top speed... you end up with a game out of balance and unrealistic.

As far as playing with the Seawolves goes, I think the best way to handle the aTMA/SS-N-27 problem is either to play with manual TMA, or to play two games, switching subs for the second roung (or both). :shifty:


Edit:
I should point out that the LW/Ami mod changes this balance significantly. The dominance of acoustic conditions in determining detection ranges increases the American subs edge in relative detection range. Also, the shorter detection ranges mean that conventional torpedoes can close the gap much more quickly than they could before. The Type 40 has been removed in favor of a torpedo with a 55 knot top speed. The Shkval might actually be more dangerous than the -27 in this mod, at least in shallow water. :up:

I disagree.

In particular the comment about airborne contacts being updated without data.

If I pickup a contact on ESM and get a couple of sweeps and the submerge the TMA is going to update his position on last known speed and direction so of course after 30 minutes the position of the air contact on the map is going to be updated but only on that assumption. If you turn on show truth you'll find the target completely off of track.

[DivingWind]

Orm,stop bitchin' for now! Complain after 1.02 patch!

[SeaQueen]

I disagree.

In particular the comment about airborne contacts being updated without data.

If I pickup a contact on ESM and get a couple of sweeps and the submerge the TMA is going to update his position on last known speed and direction so of course after 30 minutes the position of the air contact on the map is going to be updated but only on that assumption. If you turn on show truth you'll find the target completely off of track.

I'm with you on this one. When the contact age listed on the navigation screen is non-zero, the location of the target indicated is really more of an indicator of the radius of the area of uncertainty surrounding the last known contact. That's why I spend a lot of time marking up my navigation screen and drawing circles around stuff.

Sometimes I wonder if a lot of people who use manual TMA, work for solutions which are more precise than they really need to open fire with a reasonable probability of hitting their target.

[Orm]

DivingWind wrote


Orm,stop bitchin' for now! Complain after 1.02 patch!



I know that some very important bugs will be fix :up: , but I am not very sure that this patch will address the AC TMA and the subrocs unrealistic dominance. :down:

[XabbaRus]

That is the whole point of SUBROC.

First look first kill.

You don't even need that great a solution for a kill with subroc.

[Molon Labe]

Yeah, you're absolutely right. It's actually a combination of factors that's causing this. The auto TMA is the biggest offender. I was griping about the way it works from the day after I got DW. SCS doesn't seem the slightest bit concerned that the aTMA uses data other than what would be available to the player, or even that aTMA is updating targets for which no new data is generated (or example, ESM air contacts updating after being submerged for 30 minutes, or sub contacts updating when they are behind a seamount). I think part of the reason they don't care is just that there are a lot of people on this forum who don't care if the aTMA cheats, as long as it makes it easier for them to play... :damn:

Combine the cheating aTMA with super long-range torpedo acquisition and a 70 knot top speed... you end up with a game out of balance and unrealistic.

As far as playing with the Seawolves goes, I think the best way to handle the aTMA/SS-N-27 problem is either to play with manual TMA, or to play two games, switching subs for the second roung (or both). :shifty:


Edit:
I should point out that the LW/Ami mod changes this balance significantly. The dominance of acoustic conditions in determining detection ranges increases the American subs edge in relative detection range. Also, the shorter detection ranges mean that conventional torpedoes can close the gap much more quickly than they could before. The Type 40 has been removed in favor of a torpedo with a 55 knot top speed. The Shkval might actually be more dangerous than the -27 in this mod, at least in shallow water. :up:

I disagree.

In particular the comment about airborne contacts being updated without data.

If I pickup a contact on ESM and get a couple of sweeps and the submerge the TMA is going to update his position on last known speed and direction so of course after 30 minutes the position of the air contact on the map is going to be updated but only on that assumption. If you turn on show truth you'll find the target completely off of track.

Truth and gameplay have verified that the solution was accurate. I've come to PD and spotted incoming aircraft on the given bearing, and turned Truth on during single player. It's on the mark.

[Molon Labe]

That is the whole point of SUBROC.

First look first kill.

You don't even need that great a solution for a kill with subroc.

Considering the torpedo is circling instead of snaking, and can't be resteered, having an accurate range is crucial for an accurate ASROC shot. Or are you talking about nuclear depth charges? In that case, yeah...

[LuftWolf]

As far as I'm concerned, when the Type 40, ADCAP, MK50 and E15 (1960 torpedo) share the same seeker parameters, you've got a gameplay balance problem. ;)

It is essential that torpedos have different seeker parameters or every ship in the water is armed with torpedos with state of the art (read: much better than any real world specification) guidence.

[SeaQueen]

Considering the torpedo is circling instead of snaking, and can't be resteered, having an accurate range is crucial for an accurate ASROC shot. Or are you talking about nuclear depth charges? In that case, yeah...

The question we were talking about is not whether an accurate range is necessary or not, but rather precisely how accurate a range is necessary. I'd argue you don't need one as accurate as most people seem to work for.

The suspicion I was voicing is that a lot of players, in developing a firing solution, narrow down the area of uncertainty much smaller than what they probably really need to in order to have a reasonable chance of killing their adversary. If the area of uncertainty is slightly larger than area searched by the torpedo, then the torpedo has a pretty good chance of homing on it's target no matter what.

After firing multiple rockets into the same AOU, the probability of scoring a hit ought to be substantial. You don't necessarily need a perfect firing solution to be lethal. You really just need enough sniffs of the target to have an area of uncertainty on the order of the search area of the torpedo.

[SeaQueen]

Truth and gameplay have verified that the solution was accurate. I've come to PD and spotted incoming aircraft on the given bearing, and turned Truth on during single player. It's on the mark.

What was the tactic the aircraft was engaging in? If it was transiting in a straight line, or in an air corridor, then the firing solution you achieved with ESM would most likely remain accurate.

If the aircraft was using some other tactic, then the solution should not be accurate.

[LuftWolf]

In the standard database, the problem with the SS-N-27 is that the torpedo it drops, Type 40, has a seeker range of 4500m, like all other torpedos. This means that if you fire four of them in a square pattern, with their circle search area, you have just guaranteed that you will find a submarine within a greater than 9km by 9km area.

I'd say that's a pretty light solution requirement.

Or, if you have a bearing line, you can fire six of them along that bearing and cover a potential range of around 16nm, which is nearly the entire spectrum of detectable ranges for submerged contacts!

This, combined with the huge detection ranges in the standard database, and the lack of underwater missile-launch transients, means that the Akula is a nearly undefeatable opponent.

The solution to this, even if you don't want to reduce the mean detection range, is to add underwater missile launch noise and greatly reduce the seeker range of LWTs and SUBROC torpedos, as is realistic, and as has been done in the LWAMI mod, and it's working wonderfully. ;)

[OlegM]

This, combined with the huge detection ranges in the standard database, and the lack of underwater missile-launch transients, means that the Akula is a nearly undefeatable opponent.

This is a ridicolous statement, in a game where every sub is easily 0wn3d by ANY aircraft, and where active sonars work like instant sub-o-finders.

I know you didn't mean it like *that* LW, but still...

Personally when discussing Akula weapons I'd love to see Shkval becoming MUCH more deadly, before ASROC deadliness is reduced.

[LuftWolf]

I think it's fairly clear that I meant in "sub vs. sub Multiplayer combat with all other factors being equal."

And yes, the huge advantage of aircraft in the stock database and active sonar detections are separate issues that we've dealt with too, partially... :cool:

Anyway...

[Amizaur]

That is the whole point of SUBROC.

First look first kill.

You don't even need that great a solution for a kill with subroc.

You need great solution because the real max acquision range of UMGT-1 or MPT-1UE torpedo is about 1500m in good conditions, combine this with SUBROC drop error and you have to be really sure where the target is :).
Of course I'm talking aboutn real-life or modded game.
Reduced seeker range combined with launch transients and manual TMA limitations should be enaugh to reduce their usage, if not we may add random error in drop range and/or bearing to subroc doctrine.
Of course theoreticly you may try to launch many missiles to cover bigger area but I think more than two is unlikely in reality, there is very limited number of them on the board usually. Interesting proposition would be also to make limit of possible load of SUBROCs in non-written fair-play game rules...?

But in stock game acqision range of SUBROC torps is 4500m in all conditions combined with auto TMA, no missile launch transients and relatively long detection ranges is rather... uninteresting... :down:

The well tuned random error in TMA autocrew calculations is high priority patch suggestion I think. Probably was mentioned but maybe somone should refresh this in patch suggestions thread...

Beside this we could convince SCS to reduce by half seeker range of air-dropped torps and of course add missile launch transients (either a crew report or launch audible/visible on sonar) in 1.02 but both things can be done in mods so it's not so important as game-engine fix of too good auto TMA.

[OlegM]

The well tuned random error in TMA autocrew calculations is high priority patch suggestion I think. Probably was mentioned but maybe somone should refresh this in patch suggestions thread...


I seriously doubt you'll see this in patch. I might be wrong though.

If you hate auto TMA so much just turn it OFF.

Amizaur have you contacted Jamie to ask him to become beta tester BTW?

O.

[Amizaur]

Yeah I'm in but unfortunately have not much time now, this should improve after the weekend. And very limited testing is possible now with demo... Hard to test sonar model on that. But anyway I'm very happy with at least few things I checked :up: I'm curious if you can guess (or notice ;) ) the one that made me most joyfull ? :)

BTW everything I read lately suggest that Skhval is an anti-ship weapon. Possible to use as ASW only in original version with nuclear warhead...
For example some data revealed on MAKS 2005 in Moscow were about launch and run profile - both very shallow...

[SquidB]

Well...heres my 10p's worth...subrocs seem fine to me with the following exeptions.

1) It is criminal, nay unforgiverble that a big old noisy rocket doesnt give off a transient to anyone. The Subroc should be a 'ok ive got him now weapon' not a 'hmmm maybe hes there' shot, If you fire one, everyone should know about it....

2) Auto tma....i couldnt care less that its bugged,that it cheats dont use it and insist that your opponent doesnt either, as one who strives to always play in manual tma the solution is simple.....TURN IT OFF, thats the best fix there is...

[OKO]

DivingWind wrote


Orm,stop bitchin' for now! Complain after 1.02 patch!



I know that some very important bugs will be fix :up: , but I am not very sure that this patch will address the AC TMA and the subrocs unrealistic dominance. :down:

This problem will never be fixed, as your request suppose to determine different level of AI for TMA.
Where to stop, where to go ... for noobs, for regular, veteran ... impossible answer.

The solution is easy : use the MOD 2.01 (for subroc) and manual TMA, for the interest of game.
Games with manual TMA are WAY more interesting.
You have to assume your approximations and take lots of care when recording data with your sub (recording patterns).
With AC TMA, you just play to a wargame.
Without you enter the simulation.

You have to evaluate when you couldn't have accurate data.
Sometimes you couldn't determine the distance, and you will start to find yourself some tricks to evaluate a range.
here start the real commander job.
is not to only to say "engage" or not at an accurate target automatically calculated and displayed by computer that know the truth.

With shorter seeker range for ASW (and accurate distance) of the MOD 2.01 + manual TMA, your problem doesn't exist anymore.
Maybe it's only time to switch for you now.

[SeaQueen]

Of course theoreticly you may try to launch many missiles to cover bigger area but I think more than two is unlikely in reality, there is very limited number of them on the board usually.

I'm not sure that that's clear, and the thing is, it doesn't really take a whole lot of missiles. Depending on how much time you want to devote to TMA, the tactic is still valid. You just have to narrow down the AOU a little more. It's not necessarily unrealistic, either. What we HAVEN'T thrown into the mix is the effects of countermeasures and evasion. Then this gets a little more complicated. We're assuming a very naive player.

Beside this we could convince SCS to reduce by half seeker range of air-dropped torps and of course add missile launch transients (either a crew report or launch audible/visible on sonar) in 1.02 but both things can be done in mods so it's not so important as game-engine fix of too good auto TMA.

In my ideal world, the seeker range of a torpedo would depend on the sonar model. Maybe I'm too idealistic, though. My ideal sim probably doesn't run in real time. :-)

[LuftWolf]

Seaqueen, I think you are missing the point.

It is not debatable that the ADCAP and the SS-N-16/27 use substantially different technology in terms of the quality of their seekers.

The game models their seekers as being *exactly the same*.

Yes, the sonar model should determine the in-game detection range *for the same torpedo seeker across different acoustic conditions* but the database NEEDS to model the difference in quality *between torpedos* in order for the game to: model reality and play in a balanced manner.

[SeaQueen]

Yes, the sonar model should determine the in-game detection range *for the same torpedo seeker across different acoustic conditions* but the database NEEDS to model the difference in quality *between torpedos* in order for the game to: model reality and play in a balanced manner.

I don't think so, because I've agreed with everything you've said.
:-)

I'm confused about where the detection range you quoted comes from, though. From the conversation, I'm under the impression that it's a just hard number, in the database somewhere. I wish I knew more about the database and the sonar model. Is it that all the torpedos have the same source level or something? Is there a place where I can learn how the sonar model works?

[LuftWolf]

In the standard database:

The detection range for the generic active torpedo sensor (assigned to all active torpedos) is hard set at 4500m and the sensitivity of that seeker is set such that, for all acoustic conditions (high sea, bottom limited, across layer, etc.) the detection will ALWAYS occur at that range.

For contrast, in the LWAMI mod:

We have created about 15 unique seekers with varying ranges AND we have reduced the sensitivity of the seekers so that acoustic conditions (especially layers, sea state, and acoustic environment type) and target parameters will greatly influence the ability of the seekers, meaning that the detections won't always occur at those hardset maximum ranges.

The database works on both the principle of hard set maximum ranges, and curves off of that max range based on the acoustic engine and the sensitivity of the sensor, which provides the third variable in the log scale of sound level at the sensor surface (or put another way, the degree to which the sensor can amplify signal contacts over background noise).

[SeaQueen]

For contrast, in the LWAMI mod:

We have created about 15 unique seekers with varying ranges AND we have reduced the sensitivity of the seekers so that acoustic conditions (especially layers, sea state, and acoustic environment type) and target parameters will greatly influence the ability of the seekers, meaning that the detections won't always occur at those hardset maximum ranges.

The database works on both the principle of hard set maximum ranges, and curves off of that max range based on the acoustic engine and the sensitivity of the sensor, which provides the third variable in the log scale of sound level at the sensor surface (or put another way, the degree to which the sensor can amplify signal contacts over background noise).

This is actually really interesting because something I've wanted to do for a while, is create a little spreadsheet where I could make estimates of sweep widths, MDRs, etc. from which I could make more informed decisions tactically. Is there somewhere I could learn about how the sonar model and the database work?

[LuftWolf]

Well, I've been procrastinating on creating something similar to that for each of the sensors we've added in the game, primarily because I'm not even sure how to standardize such a thing to present it in a meaningful way. :oops: :cry:

[LuftWolf]

I'm not really sure about what the best way to learn about the sonar model and the acoustics engine would be.

Amizaur and I have simply been playing around with the database enough to have a good feel for it, but actually there is considerable disagreement in the modding community about what is actually going on "under the hood" and what the database values mean.

This is all very much a work in progress from the standpoint of trying to get a working knowledge-base, and the culture of secrecy inhereted from SC, although thawing slightly in DW, doesn't help much.

My best suggestion is to create various test scenarios and start messing with database values and see how object behavior changes in game. The easiest way to do this is with torpedos or playable sonar sensors.

[LuftWolf]

As someone with formal training in acoustics, you'll probably find that it is simplier than you would expect in terms of how many values in the database actually have a meaningful impact on sensor performance.

[Molon Labe]

Truth and gameplay have verified that the solution was accurate. I've come to PD and spotted incoming aircraft on the given bearing, and turned Truth on during single player. It's on the mark.

What was the tactic the aircraft was engaging in? If it was transiting in a straight line, or in an air corridor, then the firing solution you achieved with ESM would most likely remain accurate.

If the aircraft was using some other tactic, then the solution should not be accurate.

Circling around while monitoring buoys, doing MAD runs, perhaps on approach for a torpedo shot.... It's not accurate because the solution is still valid. It's accurate because the solution was updated because aTMA chooses a solution "within some parameters," in other words, it relies on the Truth. Once the solution varies enough from the truth that its outside of the allowable parameters (apparently) it updates, even though no new data has been provided.

I had long suspected that aTMA was using data other than the bearing lines and possibly DEMON data in creating a solution; this behavior--the updating of ESM contacts while submerged and the updating of sub contacts behind terrain--confirmed that suspicion.

I agree that you don't need a "perfect" solution to fire, but I really don't see what that has to do with the problems causing the SS-N-27 ASW to dominate the game. If anything, such a belief on the part of players commutes the problem...

Getting a perfect solution or an imperfect solution still takes time. The problem is that TMA will only get you a working solution after two legs (~8 minutes), with dead on solutions only after about 15 minutes assuming no course/speed changes by the target. Auto TMA is good enough to shoot in 2 minutes and dead on in 6-8.

[Orm]

LuftWolf wrote


This, combined with the huge detection ranges in the standard database, and the lack of underwater missile-launch transients, means that the Akula is a nearly undefeatable opponent.


Or, in a MP dive with 4 players, two with Seawolf and the two others with Akula, it is quite usual that the Akulas will die first, usually at the beginning of the dive. They just kill each other, since with their sensors, they don't detect Seawolf but the other Akula, then shooting straight away a volley of missiles at each other, scoring two deaths. When this happens once, it is OK for me, but when you get the same result four times in two days, you begin to wonder that something is not right. :hmm:

[XabbaRus]

The only way Luft to really understand the dbase is to change one thing and then test it many many times in different situations.

Why do you think SCX took so long. Thomas went through each sensor.

He'd mod a sensor and not the doctrine to see what happened.

Now if you have seen the SCX database you'll see the number of sensors.

Seriously if you want to make the mod really good you'll have to lock yourself away and test and test and test.

Molon I use auto TMA and haven't witnessed what you are saying. There has been many a times my TMA has gone off on a unit that has no sensor update. All my aircraft only have position updated on last known speed and direction.

Never have I seen helos or aircraft have their position updated to match that of truth. Hey and I'm not ebing awkward here just I know what I have seen too.

[Amizaur]

I'm confused about where the detection range you quoted comes from, though. From the conversation, I'm under the impression that it's a just hard number, in the database somewhere. I wish I knew more about the database and the sonar model. Is it that all the torpedos have the same source level or something? Is there a place where I can learn how the sonar model works?

Well take a Ludger's DWEdit and look at the database and sensor values.
Comparing different sensors of known performance you can understand role of each parameter quite good, after some testing even better.
If you wanted deeper insight into DW sonar model, there is very detailed txt description of it made by Ludger and a tool for modders by Ludger too, called DW Analyzer, which simulates in-game sonar model very precisely. I used it to project and test the seekers and FFG active sonar, later confirming results by in-game testing. It rather complicated tool but gives good understanding how DW sonar model works (and actually easier than by just reading through txt description of used algorithms and formulas).
But I think it's a waste of time studying it now, because the active sonar model is bugged and gives totally unrealistic pefrformance currently, that's the reason we couldn't make proper active sonar seekers for torpedos which det range based on conditions and target strength. We did best we could with current bugged sonar model - n general it's still a hard number, det range is reduced only in few specific conditions (slow target under the layer with front or rear aspect).
But the active sonar model will be fixed in 1.02 and then we'll be able to make proper active sonar seeker modeling, so I suggest you that you study the sonar model after relase of 1.02 patch (probably updated version of Ludger's Analyzer will be available then), now it's waste of time as it's bugged and in practice for torp seekers it's a hard fixed number, only varying randomly in 10-20% range (so for 2000m seeker you can get det range of 2100m sometimes and 1800m sometimes for example).
Currently in 2.01 mod only in specific conditions vs small slow target front aspect under the layer torpedo seeker range can be reduced below those values. From theoretical analyses in Analyzer it it possible to miss a small target completly even with ADCAP in the least favourable conditions :-) but changes of such incident should be very low, many factors would have to be lowest possible simultaneously (target vsmall, speed close to zero , aspect VERY close to zero, tgt under layer, high sea state). And if you experienced such conditions you could overcome this by launching two torpedos and attacking target from two different aspects.

[SeaQueen]

Amizaur and I have simply been playing around with the database enough to have a good feel for it, but actually there is considerable disagreement in the modding community about what is actually going on "under the hood" and what the database values mean.

This is all very much a work in progress from the standpoint of trying to get a working knowledge-base, and the culture of secrecy inhereted from SC, although thawing slightly in DW, doesn't help much.

That's a shame, though, because it inhibits us from getting the kind of data from which real life tactics could be employed. One thing I liked about Harpoon, was that they were very upfront about how the radar and sonar aspects of the game worked.

And as for it being simplistic...

You'd probably be amazed at how simplistic the computer models used to make real recommendations to defense decision makers are. It's also interesting to see how accurate they are in spite of their simplicity, although some are more predictive than others and NOBODY actually claims their model is predictive. :-)

It's kind of funny really, that people build these wargames that supposedly have no predictive value, then make predictions based on them, and expect decision makers to believe them.

Gotta love the Washington game...

My boss said that Red Storm Rising by Microprose was the best submarine combat model ever built at that time. It explicitly took into account things that Pentagon planners hand waved their way through. Just the fact that THEY WERE THERE, in some kind of quantitative way was an advance over what was previously done.

DW and Harpoon are LIGHT YEARS more sophisticated than that, so... you'd probably be amazed at how useful commerically available wargames are in making estimates of performance even in the abscense of classified data, advanced sonar performance models, etc. because a lot of this stuff has such a huge uncertainty on it, that nailing down specific values is not always an easy thing to do anyway. It's good enough to be in the ballpark.

Combine that with the fact that a lot of "classified" data is extracted from unclassified sources, or else there exist public domain estimates of equilivent accuracy published by people like Janes. People who develop commercial wargames can potentially make really nice pieces of work.

[SeaQueen]

I agree that you don't need a "perfect" solution to fire, but I really don't see what that has to do with the problems causing the SS-N-27 ASW to dominate the game. If anything, such a belief on the part of players commutes the problem...

The thing is, the tactic of developing a firing solution with a relatively large AOU, then firing multiple missiles into that AOU so that the area searched by the torpedos cover the largest possible fraction of that area, if not the entirety of it, is a perfectly good, and very effective tactic, so even if you gave the torpedoes a smaller sensor range, I'm not sure it's clear that that the situation would change very much. It just slows the process down a little more because to maintain the equivilent effectiveness, you'd need a smaller AOU, hence spend more time developing a firing solution. The SS-N-27 / Akula is a VERY effective weapons system, even with less capable torpedos on the missile.

[darksythe]

Sorry i missed most of this post and what i am about to say has already been said but i gotta say it...

Turn Off Auto TMA!!!

It spoils the fun of the dive. If you dont want to do the tma your self get someone to ride along with you in platform and handle the tma. Thats what the guys i dive with do. ;)

[Molon Labe]

Sorry i missed most of this post and what i am about to say has already been said but i gotta say it...

Turn Off Auto TMA!!!

It spoils the fun of the dive. If you dont want to do the tma your self get someone to ride along with you in platform and handle the tma. Thats what the guys i dive with do. ;)

You're totally right, playing on manual is so much better...BUT there aren't many players that can handle it so it's hard to get a manual TMA game. The bottom line is that aTMA is used in most games, and because SCS made it a cheat instead of an assistant (as autocrew in previous games were) they have created an enormous balance and realism problem. The fact that it can be turned off doesn't create an excuse...

At least with sub command you could do manual in an aTMA dive and not be at an extreme disadvantage, because aTMA then wasn't a cheat...but now, we're pretty much stuck with it unless we're lucky enough to get a dive with all elite players.

[darksythe]

IMHO players should perfect tma in sp then join us veterans in mp.

Thats how i did it (In SC) perfected it there then when dw came out moved to MP. Otto can go back to basic remove it from game i say. Untill then make sure that theres a nice honest host who keeps Otto turned off and have real fun trying to find your opponent before wasting missiles and the like on them.

Go Molon tell em all. Keep Auto Off. :smug:

[OKO]

I'm really happy people who stopped using it (or maybe never used for some) says how it's MUCH MORE interesting to play without AC TMA.

TMA are NOT difficult.
There only basic rules to respect to make a GREAT one (very accurate) on DW.
The main difference beetween SC and DW on this point is on DW, you must use recording patterns, when you could do whatever you want on SC to record LOBs.
I already mentionned this around 10 times on forum, but will do one more time :

during the data collection, just don't =>
- change speed
- change depth
- change course.
be at least at 7 knts minimum if you use the towed array, no minimal speed on all other sonars.
thats all, but all that.

the easiest way to make a TMA on a TA only is to wait 3 LOB, then changing course for 30 to 90°, and record 3 more LOBs
because you turned during record pattern, you will have so : 3 good LOBs, 1 (maybe 2) corrupted LOBs (during the turn) and then 3 more good LOBS.

just align the 3 first good LOB and the 3 second good LOBs on the center line of the dot stack to have an EXACT line, not a curve.
If you have a curve, you miss the distance, this 6 LOB must be ABSOLUTLY on a same line, easy to see if you change the ruler distance, from farther to shorter distance, you will see a curve in one way, then a line, then a curve in the other way =>
the right distance is the line beetween the 2 curves.
If you proceed that way, TMA with TA only are easy to make in less than 10 minutes of record, and only one minute of work on TMA station, on whatever plateform (even KILO).
2 X 3 LOB is the ABSOLUTE minimum
but 2 X 4 is really much more confortable to do.
Don't remember to NOT USE the corrupted LOBs you recorded during the turn, just concentrate to align the 1st and the second series of good LOB.

You don't need to waste your time on TMA station as long as you don't have enough informations, so just don't waste your time to try impossible TMA (because of to few informations) before it is the time to do it : this is far the most common mistake that makes believe to people TMA is hard when it is not =>
NOBODY can make a TMA with insufficient data, so just DON'T TRY IT, and wait for the right time, you will need only 1 minute for a TMA on target if you do it IN TIMES.
If your obstination conduct you to try a TMA each new LOB, you will lost time, accuracy and confidence in your capacity to make it.
So WAIT THE RIGHT TIME TO MAKE IT.
this is simply the most important statment on this subject ....

Using AC TMA, whether it's cheating or not (and it is on DW) is anyway the best way to kill the most important and interesting part of the game : building YOURSELF your situational awarness.
With AC TMA, this game is only a wargame. Without, it become a real simulation. If you let the AC doing all the interesting job for you, what will be games : just a pressing button contest ?
Making your own TMA, will also give more interesting games, because error will occurs, on both sides, and as you know that, you need to improve your tactical skill to limit the error factor, in some word you will learn as a real commander instead to play as a wargamer.

Welcome to a new world :lol:

[Fish]

Well, there is one problem, new cadets mostly have no idea about manual TMA, they are glad they shoot a torp in the right direction.
They are sharkfood already after they enter a fleet.
Also a lot of the more experienced players, have difficulties to follow all whats on there screen, bio's, neutrals etcetera.
When we, the Seawolves, play without the possibility to use auto TMA, 80 % will be excluded from gameplay.
But I am aware of the auto TMA cheat and hope that will be fixed in the 102 patch.
I am sure, OKO, being one of the beta testers, will hammer on that problem if it still exists, as I will do.

[Mau]

Yes I would prefer that the AC TMA would be fixed instead on using manual all the time. I think I know how to use Manual TMA (I think) but the thing with the FFG (which is the platform I am using 90% of the time) is that it is pretty hard to manage the TMA with the configuration right now, with the behaviour on the surface (a lot more and I mean a lot more that underwater, and the fact that I am using the FFG as being a captain/TAO and not as a multi operator.

Just my 2 cents as a Ship warfighter

[Molon Labe]

IMHO players should perfect tma in sp then join us veterans in mp.

Thats how i did it (In SC) perfected it there then when dw came out moved to MP. Otto can go back to basic remove it from game i say. Untill then make sure that theres a nice honest host who keeps Otto turned off and have real fun trying to find your opponent before wasting missiles and the like on them.

Go Molon tell em all. Keep Auto Off. :smug:


Once again, you're right. In fact, that's exactly what I did...I got proficient in SP and read up on some tactics before joining SCHQ...so I was quite ready for the level of play there.

But even if we agree that it's easy to learn on our own, we're in the minority on this and we can't ram our awesome ways down everyone else's throats. :roll:

Edit: Oh yeah, and forcing manual FFG TMA on that little sheet with no dot stack is just sadistic.

[darksythe]

But even if we agree that it's easy to learn on our own, we're in the minority on this and we can't ram our awesome ways down everyone else's throats. :roll:


Your right......
But we sure can try. Make a DW Perrisher Course and make sure that peeps get Manual TMA drilled in real deep.... Like right under a tanker in pretty shallow water have a wave file yell USE MANUAL TMA. :rotfl:

[OneShot]

Thats why I love flying the Orion and the Helo. There is no TMA, there prolly wont any in the future and actually I can live pretty much without. But I guess as a "fin" you really need it and having "god-like" AC on that takes away some of the fun (especially in MP) - for the old hands. Just never forget, there are people around who play this game and just dont want to or cant deal with manual TMA, they need a good AC on that to enjoy their game, and they are just as important as the hardcore do-all-himself guys.

[darksythe]

Thats why I love flying the Orion and the Helo. There is no TMA, there prolly wont any in the future and actually I can live pretty much without. But I guess as a "fin" you really need it and having "god-like" AC on that takes away some of the fun (especially in MP) - for the old hands. Just never forget, there are people around who play this game and just dont want to or cant deal with manual TMA, they need a good AC on that to enjoy their game, and they are just as important as the hardcore do-all-himself guys.

Well as to the need for the A-Tma needs of noobs maybe when 102 comes out with gamespy support we can have 2 seperate rooms 1 for us hardcore simmers and one for the learners. If the term Noob offends ne 1 my appologies :P

Oh and 1 shot im not refering to you as a noob If you use a platform that doesnt need tma then thats one thing, but for people who are using the subs/ffg's they should really invest in learning it it makes the game play experience much more satisfying.

[Molon Labe]

I'd give the FFG'ers a break, their sheet only goes out, what, 25k yards IIRC? That's not enough to work with...

[LuftWolf]

Asking people to play FFG without aTMA, until the 1.02 patch comes out which will address it, is, as Molon said before, sadistic.

The only FFG player I've seen make it work for him is OKO, and I'm not sure how he does it, but all the credit to him.

[OKO]

we can have 2 seperate rooms 1 for us hardcore simmers and one for the learners. If the term Noob offends ne 1 my appologies :P

the fact is there is lot of very skilled people didn't came to manual TMA.
You really couldn't call them noob as some have a HUGE tactical knowledge, but just didn't take the time to master the TMA
Finally, TMA is easier than sonar station, you just have to wait the right time to make it and to refine with dot stack.
Compared to the sonar, where you need to ID and choose the right contact to track, you spend much more time, energy and work than on TMA.

TMA is just 1 or 2 minutes sometimes in game (just before torpedoes launch for example), but lots of people think it's a station where you need to spend most of the time.
That's why they tough AC TMA could manage that for them, because of to much workload.
But that is not true. You have to come to this station only when you have enough data to work. And never before (except to count the LOBS in 5 seconds to know when you can start working here).

And definitively, manual TMA make the game deeper in the experience and in the immersion.
On MS, there is no AC TMA at all and noboby, even total noobs, ever complained about it ... just because they never tried (we say it's baaaaaaaad :lol: ).
If you just say : ok, now I handle this thing, the step is easy to go, with good learning curve and this change really lots of thing in the game experience.
On solo and MP missions.

[OKO]

Asking people to play FFG without aTMA, until the 1.02 patch comes out which will address it, is, as Molon said before, sadistic.

The only FFG player I've seen make it work for him is OKO, and I'm not sure how he does it, but all the credit to him.

On FFG TMA, I use only (99.9% of the time) the merge button.
you couldn't use the TMA on TA as it's only 10kyrds LOB there (I don't remember who were mentionned this before).
So, if you do a TMA on a sub at 5 miles or less with the TA, this mean you need to learn the use of the OMNI active because you are supposed to catch the contact here before this range.
Merging manually ensure I merge good contact also, because i had real strange things with AC TMA on OHP on this subject.
So, it takes some times, at mission start, slowly but surely merging contacts on the OHP TMA.
I could use also the TMA on active to have a solution on a sub, and not only a position.
But I don't use it a lot, because this suppose to make some pings after picking up the contact, and the less I ping, once ennemy sub is tracked, the more I have chance of surviving doing quick and "silent" attack (fast speed on target and no ping until the last one for confirmation then assign/launch torps).
But as LOB will certainly have correct value soon (...did you say patch ?) OHP TA could find a new utility on TMA process.

One thing I dislike a lot with AC TMA on OHP is the ability of the AC to make a TMA on ESM, not only VERY accurate with 2 or 3 ESM LOB (when its impossible ...with so few) but also to make these TMA FAR out of the paper, when that couldn't be possible.

So, here again, AC TMA is close to show truth and could work at 3 or 4 times the real capacities of the hardware.
not fair, and very irrealistic.

So on TMA, at this time, I use "merge" as near the only fonction.

[Mau]

But OKO when you say using ``Merge`` function in the TMA, you mean that the TMA is still manual or Auto. I don't think you can use the Merge function if you are in auto, is it not?

As well, it is not because we are not good at it sometimes that we choose not to stay in manual
Again let say that I want to be a TAO, th eTAO is not jumping from one station to another. He's got competent operator who will help him to clear the picture so that the TAO can fight the ship effectively. I think it is right to use that in DW as well. Of course we need to fix then the Auto TMA if it is true that it is cheating (which I don`t realy think it's true since the amount of LOB you have with OHP and to manage to think which ones are realy useful and true, nothwithstanding that the wrong ones, even though you delete them, are coming back all the time.

Mau

[Molon Labe]

But OKO when you say using ``Merge`` function in the TMA, you mean that the TMA is still manual or Auto. I don't think you can use the Merge function if you are in auto, is it not?

As well, it is not because we are not good at it sometimes that we choose not to stay in manual
Again let say that I want to be a TAO, th eTAO is not jumping from one station to another. He's got competent operator who will help him to clear the picture so that the TAO can fight the ship effectively. I think it is right to use that in DW as well. Of course we need to fix then the Auto TMA if it is true that it is cheating (which I don`t realy think it's true since the amount of LOB you have with OHP and to manage to think which ones are realy useful and true, nothwithstanding that the wrong ones, even though you delete them, are coming back all the time.

Mau

The aTMA is cheating, there really is no question about it. The set of possible solutions that it chooses from is being limited to a very narrow range of error around the true data. Renzie has all but directly admitted to this, and the fact that it is happening is obvious to any manual TMA player that turns aTMA on. I played 688I and SC on manual all the time, I'm quite good at TMA, and I know when a solution should be tight and when it should be loose. aTMA is creating solutions too good to be obtained (except by good luck, but aTMA does it consistently) with the data collected.

A solution of reasonable certainty (ballpark range, good enough to shoot on) can be obtained only after one leg is completed and a second leg is being made (assuming you have DEMON data too). That takes at least 8 minutes...aTMA is getting a solution that good in 2-4 minutes. Tracking is no longer part of the game, you just detect, wait a couple minutes, and fire. In SC, it took a very good solution to get an ASROC in acquistion range, and you had to work to get it...just yesterday, I killed a Seawolf that I had lost contact with for 20 minutes after a single bearing line was obtained and sent to TMA...that one line gave me a solution good enough to shoot and kill on. The kill was less than satisfying.

[OKO]

But OKO when you say using ``Merge`` function in the TMA, you mean that the TMA is still manual or Auto. I don't think you can use the Merge function if you are in auto, is it not?

The only AC I use on OHP are : EW and CM
EW because you don't have the right to miss any new EW track, wherever you are (at any other station)
And CM to start the first CM launch in case of vampire.
So AC TMA are manual of course, to let me merge what I want


As well, it is not because we are not good at it sometimes that we choose not to stay in manual.

I didn't said that Mau, I said you didn't took time to see it's really not that difficult ;)
The best prove is ... I can make it ... and i'm not a scientist or military specialist, i didn't even made science studies and i'm quite poor at mental calculation.


Again let say that I want to be a TAO, th eTAO is not jumping from one station to another. He's got competent operator who will help him to clear the picture so that the TAO can fight the ship effectively. I think it is right to use that in DW as well.

If you say that I could say : why not using ALL auto crew so ?
and just using the ship control.
DW could be employed as a simulation or as a wargame (what you discribed).
I didn't tell you to do this or that, just explained you miss the most interesting part using the AC TMA.
because under water, things are not as clear as the AC TMA picture always give you so soon.
So you miss the simulation aspect, the need to make choices when the solution is difficult to make, finally you lost the main interesting part of the simulation -to my eyes-



Of course we need to fix then the Auto TMA if it is true that it is cheating (which I don`t realy think it's true since the amount of LOB you have with OHP and to manage to think which ones are realy useful and true, nothwithstanding that the wrong ones, even though you delete them, are coming back all the time.
Mau

fixing ? how ? make it less accurate ? how much ? less than a good player ? more ? in how long time a TMA should be made by the AC ?
So much questions to answer ... and so easy solution to find : manual TMA, for the good of games.

Listen to all peoples using it : didn't you saw manual TMA give much better games ? A 6 minutes game (when you've got the 1st LOB with Akula, the missile is 1 minute to be launch ... i call that not only a cheat but also a game killer) could become a 1 hour of very interesting game, really playing cats and mouses.

Now, I never said do this or that, I just said you better really try before giving an opinion about it. Because all people I saw tried this didn't came back to the AC : they just have good and fair game now.

[Mau]

Ok,, got your point. It is really valid.
Now then you can say that Manual TMA with OHP is possible/feasible. I thought by listening to some people on this forum that it is almost imposible.
On sub (DW and SC) I like using Manual TMA becuse you don`t have that many LOBs.

By fixing AC TMA I meant more that if you delete some reciprocal LOB for exempe they are not coming back. I guess in Manual TMA when you drop something (and I hope) those ones you are deleting are not back)? Can you confirm that.

And finally, those that mean that if I want to play as TAO and evaluate the tactical situation to fight the ship then in that game it is considering cheating.

I will be honest with you, I am going on my TAO course very shortly, so that is why I was lookoing more into this position/situation for DW. If that do not me serve any good, then may be Hrpoon 3 is better for me?

I played Harpoon 2 and 3 since the last 10 years. I just thought that DW has a lot of potential

A friend
Mau

[OKO]

yes mau : the TMA ON TA for OHP is not possible =>
on the paper, you will have LOB of only 5 miles (10kyds) instead of 10 miles LOB (20kyds)
I don't know why, certainly a mistake (who said a bug WHO ?? :lol: )
The fact is : if you do a TMA on sub with the TA, you can make it at only less than 10kyds
And if you let a sub coming as close as 5 miles from you well ... you must be in a very bad situation, and you are supposed to catch him sooner on active.

So : no possible use of TMA on the OHP TA at this time.
but this sheet of paper is quite effective to make TMA on active sonar, or even to make a TMA on EW.
Of course, on EW, you couldn't make TMA at range the AC is able to do. But I still don't understand how the AC TMA on OHP can find a very good solution with 2 EW LOB at 25 miles, when you need more than 8 LOBs to make a solution at 12 miles maximum on the paper ... cheating ....


By fixing AC TMA I meant more that if you delete some reciprocal LOB for exempe they are not coming back. I guess in Manual TMA when you drop something (and I hope) those ones you are deleting are not back)? Can you confirm that.

on very dense theatre, there is often some contact glitch, even with manual TMA.
If the mission have few platform, there is no problem at all, but if you try heavy missions, you will have some strange things on contact : some contact switch position with another one, manual mark are very strange sometimes, ID of contact can even change !
If you already built your situationnal awarness before, it's not a real problem : you will know what contact to drop and which one is a good one. But it's not very nice to extricate this sometimes.
The problem occurs mainly with radar contacts and not with EW or TA contacts.

But, to answer your question, on manual, if you drop a contact, he disapear from the contact list but NOT from the paper.
remember its a sheet of paper, and you couldn't erase LOB previously marked here !
It's a thing that make the paper quite confusing, but it looks real as it is a sheet of paper and not a computer screen ! ;)

[Mau]

So then how is it possible to go without AC TMA if the TMA of TA is not possible with OHP.

By keeping the sonar manual so youn can decide the line of bearing you want to put in the TMA?

I am not sure to follow here?

Thanks

[Amizaur]

My few cents...

I would love to play with manual TMA, and I will if I find some time to train it some more. It's much more realistic. But anyway in some scenarios there is so much contacts from many different sensors, that I would have to spend almost all the time on TMA station, what with everything else ?
OK when there is dedicated player that cares for TMA in multistation, but when one player have to do all the work it's rather frustrating.
Also for begginers auto TMA is needed, if we are going to ban auto-TMA in MP matches, they could not play. On the other hand, if we allow auto-TMA in MP, then even completly green player can get a too-good solution from autocrew and easily kill someone more experienced with SUBROC.

So I think that auto-TMA is needed and should be fixed. How ? Making it more realistic, but limiting it to data available for human player (no "cheating") or making solution accuracy dependant on such things like geometry and number of legs would require complete redesign of how it works or at least some programming work. We are probably not to see such thing in 1.02.

So maybe simply after solution is calculated, random error should be applied to it and then displayed. Would 10% error be enaugh ? I believe human player seldom have solution better than +/-10% ? Or maybe random from 5 to 20% ? How this random error should be applied is of course to be determined, it can't be randomised every time solution is updated, because contacts would jump all over the place, error should be randomised once and kept the same, maybe only slowly decreasing with time ? When player reset the autocrew solution, error could be randomised again and player would get different, "alternate" version. Something feeling like that I remember from SC.

By simple (I thing from programmer's point of view simple enaugh to get into 1.02 patch) add of 10% or 20% error, we would get few things:

- the solution generated by auto-crew, even still "cheating" i.e. using data non available for human player, would be no more deadly accurate. The 10 or 20% error should be enaugh to reduce efectiveness of SUBROCs and to make player more cautios because he can't 100% believe autocrew solution no more, it can be different from reality and he has to take this into account, just like player making his own manual TMA knows that his solution may be a bit off.

- the solution generated by auto-TMA would be actually worse than solution made manually, so green players would have motivation to learn making this by themselves !
Just like sonar auto-crew - it's worse than when you make it yourself, and for many player THIS is the reason to learn it - because they see that they can do better than computer and with some more work they get better results. Currently disabling auto-TMA means only penalties - you had easy and exact solutions, and now you have to learn make it by yourself and still get results worse than from auto-crew.
If auto-TMA crew calculated solutions had random error applied they would be in most cases worse than made manually. So after you disable autocrew you still have to learn it and make it manually, but as a reward you get results better (in most cases) than those from autocrew ! One penalty and one reward :).

I think such change (applying random 10-20% error to auto-TMA), though far from perfect, is simple enaugh to be included into a patch, and though simple, still would improve things a lot, because it would reduce effectivenes of SUBROCs and attract players to learn manual TMA because it would privide more accurate results then.

What do you think ?

[Molon Labe]

I think you're exactly right Ami. While I think playing without aTMA is the way to go, the reality is that players need it, either because they're new or because they need to spend the time doing other things. Those players deserve to have aTMA, and the rest of us deserve a game in with aTMA can be used without it cheating.

As for 10-20% error...this concept is OK with me, I think that's about how aTMA worked in Sub Command... I would prefer an aTMA that started out sloppy but became refinded based on the data provided, that is it gets better with time, gets better with DEMON data, gets better with more legs, gets better on lag LOS, gets worse on lead LOS...etc. Maybe that's asking for too much, but I think they already have that now, or at least they've claimed that they have implemented such a program...its just that the way that program is confined to the real data prevents us from ever seeing it in all its splendor.... Kinda like the hard limits on sensors keeping the rather nice acoustic model from being noticed until those limits are removed... ;)

[SeaQueen]

So maybe simply after solution is calculated, random error should be applied to it and then displayed. Would 10% error be enaugh ? I believe human player seldom have solution better than +/-10% ? Or maybe random from 5 to 20% ? How this random error should be applied is of course to be determined, it can't be randomised every time solution is updated, because contacts would jump all over the place, error should be randomised once and kept the same, maybe only slowly decreasing with time ? When player reset the autocrew solution, error could be randomised again and player would get different, "alternate" version. Something feeling like that I remember from SC.

I think adding some kind of simple +/- sigma to the TMA would defeat the purpose of simulating TMA. Within the sim, one is forced to make trade-offs between spending the time to develop a more accurate solution and risking the other player taking a shot at you, or else taking a shot sooner with a less accurate TMA, but one which might be wrong. It forces one to ask the question, "How accurate does my solution really need to be in order to make this attack?" Sometimes, not very, sometimes, it needs to be very good.

If there was just an arbitrary uncertainty added into the auto-TMA then there'd be no way of improving one's solution with time so regardless of the time one spent hunting a target down and developing a solution, even if that's handled by the auto-crew, one would always find themselves facing the built-in uncertainty of the TMA.

That would change the tactics one would use, and it won't necessarily change people's behavior. So, I'm not excited by this idea.


- the solution generated by auto-crew, even still "cheating" i.e. using data non available for human player, would be no more deadly accurate. The 10 or 20% error should be enaugh to reduce efectiveness of SUBROCs and to make player more cautios because he can't 100% believe autocrew solution no more, it can be different from reality and he has to take this into account, just like player making his own manual TMA knows that his solution may be a bit off.


SUBROCS should be very effective in certain situations. I liked the idea of limiting their sensor ranges best, if we're worried they're overpowered. The whole thing about SUBROCS is that one really doesn't need to believe their autocrew 100% to use the effectively. Actually, I think that ALL of the torpedos in the game are overpowered, not just the SUBROCS and dumbing them all down wouldn't be a bad thing.


- the solution generated by auto-TMA would be actually worse than solution made manually, so green players would have motivation to learn making this by themselves !

I think there's something to be said for this. I just don't think adding an arbitrary uncertainty into the game is the way to go about doing it. Maybe if the autocrew TMA was just made slower? If it took a hour to develop the same solution that a manual player could do in 30 minutes, the autocrew TMA would be at a disadvantage but there wouldn't necessarily be some magic +/- sigma inserted in an arbitrary place.

[LuftWolf]

Actually, I think that ALL of the torpedos in the game are overpowered, not just the SUBROCS and dumbing them all down wouldn't be a bad thing.

Precisely. Have you looked at the changes made in the LWAMI Mod?

We reduced, through doctrine, the search pattern of the Snake and scaled all seekers down in the database from the ADCAP seeker, which is set at 3000m, UGST 2750m, etc.

Previously, as mentioned before, all Active torpedo seekers had a range of 4500m.

The changes have worked very well.

[OKO]

The main problem, to my eyes, is even if you change the parameters as you mentionned, people using AC TMA will still rely on it.

but to come to your arguments :
I'd like also that people using AC must also REALLY need to do a real commander job => positionning their ship in the correct attitude and doesn't change vector of the ship during data collection.

This is a VERY important thing, because not only you have the gap of the AC "eye of god", but also, with it, you can do whatever you want with your ship, turning, changing depth, speed, collecting data at 1 knts ....
This is the second gap, and this one also have to be solved.

If you compare a commander, compelled to manage with "listening" pattern, with the obligation to find time to do this and to plan this during the mission, depending on what happen, with a commander able to do absolutly what he want with the sub without any consequences on the data corruption, you will find the first one learn the real job when the second one learn to abuse of irrealistic patterns.

I'm sorry but if I know my opponent will do a manual TMA when I can have the AC, i know the best thing to do is just to change course and speed every 2 minutes to kill his solution without alterating mines.
One poor guy have all the difficult stuff when the second one can do what he want.
really not fair isn't it ?

So, to conclude my argue, I will also ask a modification on AC TMA

=> to not include in the TMA process supposed corrupted LOBs, this mean :

- LOBs from TA recorded when a speed change occured from the last one

- LOBs from TA recorded when the TA snake on the sonar screen after a depth change

- LOBs from TA recorded when the TA snake on the sonar screen after a course change

- LOBs from TA recorded when the speed was under 7 knts

supposing, of course, the AC is always able to determine corrupted LOBs (even if you need brain work here on manual TMA ...).

On this conditions, AC user will have the same restriction as the non user.
Not only it's more fair, but it also compel the commander to do real patterns, and not exotic ones.
I'm not talking about veteran using AC, they know about patterns and tactics.
But a noob starting with an "always forgiven" AC TMA will not learn anything about the real job.

Now, about the error effect you mentionned, I think it's a very difficult point.
why accurate, why inaccurate ... that is the question
You know, as me, even trained people could make huge range error in difficult conditions.
what is difficult conditions ? so many ... it's impossible to quote them all.
depending on layers, SNR, relief, stress ...
So why 10 % of error when on manual you could do only 2% and why 15% when you could have done 100% manually ... ?

But 10% seems to be a good average
If you have this 10%, coupled with above mentionned constraints, THEN this will be quite balanced (some times, manual will be better, sometimes worst).

I think manual TMA is to be prefered because of all things depending on it.
It's not only a station, but all about the situationnal awarness you built with that, the real conduct of the ship ... and the most realistic point of view from the commander, with real uncertainties and not only certitudes.
And here you always learn.
Learn a job quite close to the real thing, not only to displace pawn on the field, but also to take decision with partial informations, and that's the most sexy part, with an infinite learning curve ...

I don't think any AC, so sophisticated you could made, could replace the interest to make it manually, for all these reasons.

The best way to see that is on multiplayer matches.

[Amizaur]

OKO, I understand now that disabling auto-TMA is important in MP matches, even if it was with 10% error. There are other factors against using auto-TMA in MP like forcing realisting sub movement.

Seaqueen - why don't you like idea of autocrew TMA solutions penalised by 10 or 20% error ? And error could decrease with time or number of legs so after half an hour could be more precise. I'm not sure if you noticed that I mean adding error to AUTOCREW TMA only, the manual made TMA would be UNAFFECTED by this. You could still make manual TMA with no error added, it would be as good as you make it. ONLY the auto-TMA solutions would be worse.



So overall the question I wanted to ask was not about "if auto-TMA should be changed or improved" because we all know that it should, only this could be difficult, time consuming and requiring reprogramming some of the code. Also not "if we should use auto-TMA in MP matches" because thanks to OKO now I understand that it shouldn't anyway.

I'm asking about one thing - what would be better:

- auto-TMA unchanged as it is now

- autocrew (and ONLY autocrew) TMA solutions penalised by 10-20%, the penalty could decrease with time so after half an hour error would be less.

I'm not asking if it would be realistic or not (I know it wouln't) - but if it would be better that what is now.
Because I feel that such change is simple enaugh to implement that we could have it. More radical changes are much less probable to get into simple patch... (I want to be wrong here :) )

P.S. Similar question could be - should auto-TMA be made to work like in Sub Command ? I'm under impression that there it was less accurate than now in DW.

[Molon Labe]

Hmmmm.... Do I detect a new consensus forming? :D :yep: :sunny:

[Molon Labe]

Amizaur,

What a lot of us are saying is that the aTMA shouldn't be "penalized" but should be limited to produce a solution no better than what is available with the data provided. In other words, the initial solutions should be crap, but should improve with time, provided that ownship is manuevered properly.

[Amizaur]

OK, I agree that this would be much better and much more realistic that what what I propose.
I'm only not sure when we could see such radical improvement... Let's hope that it's not so hard to make as I feel.

[Molon Labe]

OK, I agree that this would be much better and much more realistic that what what I propose.
I'm only not sure when we could see such radical improvement... Let's hope that it's not so hard to make as I feel.

I think SCS already did all the hard work. They were quite proud of "Otto" when DW was released because, supposedly, "Otto" narrowed down the solution and gets better with time. My observations are generally consistent with this....the problem isn't that they didn't set it up to get better with time--I think they did--but that the error in the solution is limited by the real data. The aTMA program needs to choose a solution within the total range of error, not limited by anything that the player doesn't/wouldn't have knowledge of. Once this artificial variable is removed, aTMA might work just fine with a minimum of further refinements.

[OKO]

That's a good solution
but you can be more rude at start, as for the real thing ... as said Molon, the AI shouldn't be able to do a better solution than informations provided can give.
so, with 1 sensor (examples ...)
2 LOB => 150% of error
3 LOB => 100% of error
4 LOB => 50% of error
5 LOB => 25% of error
6 LOB => 7% of error
7 LOB and above => 2% of error

for a good solution you need 6 LOBs, excellent one from the 7th.

but this doesnt solve the fact the commander could manoeuver as need without any constrainst.
in other way, we couldn't penalize commander using good pattern, and as we couldn't check that ....

And this way they have to wait near the same time of manual players to have some good solutions.

I saw a script instruction named "solution".
I suppose this could be implemented, after further investigation about accuracy (that was just a drift), without noticeable problems by Sonalysts. But certainly not for the next release.

Of course, this consensus must be agreed by all, we don't gonna ask for something concerning few people.

But this change could allow manual & AC TMA on the same game
at this time, it's really unfair.

[Molon Labe]

That's a good solution
but you can be more rude at start, as for the real thing ... as said Molon, the AI shouldn't be able to do a better solution than informations provided can give.
so, with 1 sensor (examples ...)
2 LOB => 150% of error
3 LOB => 100% of error
4 LOB => 50% of error
5 LOB => 25% of error
6 LOB => 7% of error
7 LOB and above => 2% of error

for a good solution you need 6 LOBs, excellent one from the 7th.

but this doesnt solve the fact the commander could manoeuver as need without any constrainst.
in other way, we couldn't penalize commander using good pattern, and as we couldn't check that ....

And this way they have to wait near the same time of manual players to have some good solutions.

I saw a script instruction named "solution".
I suppose this could be implemented, after further investigation about accuracy (that was just a drift), without noticeable problems by Sonalysts. But certainly not for the next release.

Of course, this consensus must be agreed by all, we don't gonna ask for something concerning few people.

But this change could allow manual & AC TMA on the same game
at this time, it's really unfair.

Right! I like your point about the manuevering in particular. The rate at which the solution improves needs to be dependent on how Ownship is manuevered. 7 lines while Ownship is stationary should still produce a crap solution. Half of the refining process will need to be changing ownship's contribution to the bearing rate. The last thing I would want to see is a "good" range solution being obtained on a parallel or lead course, or a "good" range solution being obtained with no DEMON data without extensive manuevering...etc.

It's worth noting that with SC, it was usually fair for manual and aTMA players to be in the same game. I think I saw one incredibly lucky aTMA ASROC shot in all my time playing against opponents using autocrew...

[SeaQueen]

Precisely. Have you looked at the changes made in the LWAMI Mod?

Nope. I figured I'd wait until they stop releasing patches before I start experimenting with mods.

[LuftWolf]

Well, my intention from the very beginning was to create something to get us through to v1.02 and DWX, since there was so much complaining going on here, so you might want to revise that viewpoint. ;)

At least, in my opinion, the game is unplayable in stock v1.01+sound vs. speed. But that's only my opinion.

[darksythe]

Well, my intention from the very beginning was to create something to get us through to v1.02 and DWX, since there was so much complaining going on here, so you might want to revise that viewpoint. ;)

At least, in my opinion, the game is unplayable in stock v1.01+sound vs. speed. But that's only my opinion.

I have done alot of testing with Luftwolf in Mp using the LWAMI mod and can tell you that if your looking for a more balanced gameplay solution while waiting for 102 etc.. to come out this is the way to go for now. The vast amount of things that are affected by the mod produce a practicaly new simulation.... Ok im over exagerating a bit. But IMHO it is the great equalizer as far as Dw goes... Now if we can get the 102 with a fix for the Kilo Bb hack that will be a good day. :smug: