Lines of sight

[Orm]

Hi,

I don’t remember if this topic has been discussed previously, but forgive me if it has. I had a dive last evening against three opponents in a quite complex map full of seamounts, very shallow, with few deep areas. So, when we started, no one had any contact on each other. I was driving an Akula, so, after weapons free, I used four subrocs, randomly, on four locations to check for any reaction. And one of my torps got a contact. So I knew that a possible sub was there. Of course, I launched further missiles and ultimately sank my opponent.
Now, my question is that isn’t it cheating that you can see on the NavMap your torps getting or not contacts even if between you and the target, there isn’t any lines of sight, because of very shallow seamounts or islands.

[Molon Labe]

It would be cheating even if you had a clear line of sight, since you're not tracking it on sonar anyways.

We've been complaining about weapon-Truth for awhile, all we can do is hope. I have no idea what they were thinking when they did this in the first place. :88)

[LuftWolf]

Well, I'd guess the art of tracking your own fish has evolved to some degree to be fairly reliable IF you have a sonar track (listening for aspect changes etc...).

Of course, without a sonar track on the torpedo or in the case of missiles, that's out the window! :)

[Orm]

Thanks for your answers. I know that some of us benefit of this cheat, but anyway I had had bad taste in the mouth after this dive.

[Fandango]

But in real life, can you track your torp if it's wire guided?...

[timmyg00]

after weapons free, I used four subrocs, randomly, on four locations to check for any reaction. And one of my torps got a contact. So I knew that a possible sub was there. You used a weapon to flush out an opponent, instead of actually using your sensors to detect them?

Great tactic... NOT! :down: What kind of league allows that sort of thing? :-?

TG

[Orm]

timmyg00 wrote


Great tactic... NOT! What kind of league allows that sort of thing?


I don't understand the meaning of your remark. It just seems for me that you are searching for problems. If you do it, do it somewhere else, or be productive in your comments. I may remind you that the question had nothing to do with the tactics used during a dive.

[Bellman]

:) Orm,

The seamount scenario you dived was it a Fish SW one ore one of mine. It just rang a Bell -
:lol: Probably because its one of Fish's I have played.:hmm:

Rare to get any feedback so it would be real nice if you give any opinions/ criticisms. :yep:

[Driftwood]

I suppose "cheating" is in the eyes of the beholder. I believe we find out a lot of these things "on the dive" (fly, forgive the pun but I couldn't resist.) :D While the concept of "flushing out your opponent" certainly isn't new, using a weapon to do it is (to me at least). I've used a UUV launch before to draw fire so a team mate can effectively target an opponent but never a weapon. Using weapons in this matter CERTAINLY isn't realistic. As is using massive weapons fire (> 3 fish per target). But hey, whatever floats (or sinks) your boat. If it's not specifically against your ROE let your conscience be your guide. :yep:

[Orm]

Bellman wrote


Orm,

The seamount scenario you dived was it a Fish SW one ore one of mine. It just rang a Bell -
Probably because its one of Fish's I have played.

Rare to get any feedback so it would be real nice if you give any opinions/ criticisms.

Bellman,

To answer your question and give you my comments, I will, then, do. It was a map design by Fish and it was the second time I dived on it. To be sincere, I didn’t really like it. It is too small for subs like Seawolf or Akula. There is no room to move. In other way, it is Kilo’s paradise. And, it is right that the general configuration of this map give to the Akula the possibility to use, for some in immoral way, the particularity of the subrocs to shoot without any contact, and to overcome the problems of the seamounts, just to see for any possible reaction. I don’t say that it is an ideal tactic or fair, but until now that’s what the subroc allow you to do.

[Orm]

lrankine wrote


Using weapons in this matter CERTAINLY isn't realistic. As is using massive weapons fire (> 3 fish per target)

But, is our sub vs. sub duel-like matches in leagues realistic?

[Molon Labe]

Thanks for your answers. I know that some of us benefit of this cheat, but anyway I had had bad taste in the mouth after this dive.

We all do, unless we start whiting out the screen or something, is hard not to see!

[Molon Labe]

after weapons free, I used four subrocs, randomly, on four locations to check for any reaction. And one of my torps got a contact. So I knew that a possible sub was there. You used a weapon to flush out an opponent, instead of actually using your sensors to detect them?

Great tactic... NOT! :down: What kind of league allows that sort of thing? :-?

TG

The SeaWolves, unfortunately. :down:

[timmyg00]

timmyg00 wrote


Great tactic... NOT! What kind of league allows that sort of thing?


I don't understand the meaning of your remark. It just seems for me that you are searching for problems. If you do it, do it somewhere else, or be productive in your comments. I may remind you that the question had nothing to do with the tactics used during a dive. I don't see any rules in the forum that prohibit me from offering an opinion about the parts of your post that you used to preface your question. If you don't want it discussed, don't bring it up :P


lrankine wrote


Using weapons in this matter CERTAINLY isn't realistic. As is using massive weapons fire (> 3 fish per target)

But, is our sub vs. sub duel-like matches in leagues realistic? Are sub vs. sub duels realistic? If they include more than 2 subs in the same general area of the map, I would say no. Certainly one sub vs another is realistic.

However, just because the map designer chooses to make unrealistic maps does not force you to make unrealistic choices. But if that's the way you like to play, it's not for me to tell you to stop... But I certainly won't mind offering up an opinion ;)

TG

[Fish]

Tactics to flush out people, are as old as we play multiplayer. Nothing new.
In 688(I) HK ( past century ) people used slow, ots launched torpedos for that purpose.
Guys, this is a game, if you want realistic missions, join the navy. :)

Most maps are made for fun, not to pretend to be realistic. I read the reports, I try to imagine what kind of maps the majority likes.

When we play a war we try to make the maps "more" realistic, but its still a game, isn't it? :yep:

[Fish]

after weapons free, I used four subrocs, randomly, on four locations to check for any reaction. And one of my torps got a contact. So I knew that a possible sub was there. You used a weapon to flush out an opponent, instead of actually using your sensors to detect them?

Great tactic... NOT! :down: What kind of league allows that sort of thing? :-?

TG

The biggest and oldest league. :up:

[Amizaur]

I also think that best solution would be to have "Weapons Truth" option in settings menu (ON/OFF), just like Show Truth.
With the option disabled, non-wire guided weapons would behave just like any other target, so you would have to track it on your sonar.
I know that the game would become much harder for most people, but that's why it should be ON/OFF option ! Most people could play with ON and everything would be like is now, but in realistic league game this option could be forced by serwer to OFF and... well you could still try to flush an opponent from some place (and you CAN do this in real life, at least in theory :-) ) but the cheat of observing what your SUBROC dropped torpedo does (circle, acquire, home) would be eliminated, you could only listen to the effects on your sonar and guess if there was something or not :)

[Driftwood]

timmyg00 wrote




lrankine wrote


Using weapons in this matter CERTAINLY isn't realistic. As is using massive weapons fire (> 3 fish per target)

But, is our sub vs. sub duel-like matches in leagues realistic? Are sub vs. sub duels realistic? If they include more than 2 subs in the same general area of the map, I would say no. Certainly one sub vs another is realistic.

However, just because the map designer chooses to make unrealistic maps does not force you to make unrealistic choices. But if that's the way you like to play, it's not for me to tell you to stop... But I certainly won't mind offering up an opinion ;)

TG I agree with TimmyG on this one. And thanks to Amizur for the above post. I never realized that this "cheat" was available to Akula drivers. :huh: And I thought the lack of a TIW report on ASROC launches were bad........ :doh:

[timmyg00]

I also think that best solution would be to have "Weapons Truth" option in settings menu (ON/OFF), just like Show Truth.
With the option disabled, non-wire guided weapons would behave just like any other target, so you would have to track it on your sonar.
I know that the game would become much harder for most people, but that's why it should be ON/OFF option ! Most people could play with ON and everything would be like is now, but in realistic league game this option could be forced by serwer to OFF and... well you could still try to flush an opponent from some place (and you CAN do this in real life, at least in theory :-) ) but the cheat of observing what your SUBROC dropped torpedo does (circle, acquire, home) would be eliminated, you could only listen to the effects on your sonar and guess if there was something or not :) I've been asking for that for a long time. So... I agree :P

TG

[Orm]

timmyg00,

As I really hope that any hostile feeling between us would disappear :) , I though that you saw the meaning of my post was to denounce this “cheating” from the use of subrocs. To flush an opponent, it is a tactic, good or bad, depends of the way you see it. This not a tactic I usually use, but like I said previously, this type of weapon + the configuration of the map opened this option. About, what is realistic or not, I would only say that as long time as we are talking about matchup between subs on small areas, the players have only one goal – to sink the other ones. So, in this kind of fight, I don’t really see the meaning to try to limit the number of weapons use (3 per sub?), I mean why? It would be another story if we were really on a war theater, with some primary and secondary tasks.
Two more words, first like most of you, I just hope that these “cheatings” could be fix sometime, and second, yes, I belong to the Seawolves and proud of it. :up:

[OKO]

I think the "weapon truth" option should be to hard (and don't forget this is also true for ASM/ASW/LAM missiles ...).
I mean on a real big platform, like OHP or subs (but not for helo or Orion I presume) there should be someone timing the torpedo to know when this torp will activate and supposed to hit the target.

Instead of switching off the actual "weapon truth", I think the best and most realistic thing could be to have the calculated path displayed.
Something like a link on the weapon trajectory with no refresh after 30 sec.
So you will see it only as historic path, and you couldn't see whether the weapon acquired the target or not, but you can still visualize the theorical weapon path.
If you just switch off the display, you will need to calculate yourself when the torp is supposed to hit the target, and as most of people play alone, this is some additionnal workload.

So my suggestion is to show the theorical path of the weapon, as it is certainly displayed on those plateforms IRL, but not to be totally blind about it.

[Bellman]

Amizaur - I agree -'On/Off' From a divers torp operation perspective I would hope for :-

Off-'Real' option non-wire guided do not appear anywhere unless tracked by sonar, we rely only on Active Intercept.
Wired appear only on FC target display and **no** nav unless tracked with sonar. The FC, as I think in real-life,
will be updated while the wire is attached, and that feedback should be enough if you are also in
TMA and reading all other Nav signs. If the FC updates torp data to Nav then let it only show the torp position not
orientation/heading.If you insist on having this info. then it should be provided only after a built-in
time delay.(call it data processing) :o

Many of us do not want the 'gamey' console type torp sprites showing turns and twitching. But I am happy to let them
stand as an option for newcommers or those who want to play their game that way.

Fish Guys, this is a game, if you want realistic missions, join the navy.

Most maps are made for fun, not to pretend to be realistic. I read the reports, I try to imagine what kind of maps the majority likes.

When we play a war we try to make the maps "more" realistic, but its still a game, isn't it?

I second that and have had loads of fun with your missions particularly the seamount located ones. :cool:
Theres room for 'Real' action simulating scenarios and the option of which to use is open to the player.
Providing the designer labels or describes -'the clues are there' I think many of us like both and the
selection is one of time availability( and mood) as 'reality' prescribes possibly longer run-in times.

The future lies with the newcommers and we musnt scare them off with the usual earnest 'reality' driven
sim players anal retentivity. (Guilty here Mi Lud) :yep: Hard-core reality and 'Easy' option entry levels are available in
long-living, much loved, sims like Falcon. Fun and involvement and a friendly supportive community will provide
a hook to a lasting commitment and ensure the future of our game. :up:

Under 'attack' here - call for breakfast- see you. :damn:

[OKO]

Off-'Real' option non-wire guided do not appear anywhere unless tracked by sonar

so it's gonna more difficult than the real thing ...
I'm pretty sure unguided torpedoes still have a display to show the theorical path of the torp, or at least an operator especially dedicated to this calculation on modern sub.
And we will need an exe to calculate this, because of increasing worload for a single player on a sub.
We are not anymore at WWII ...

I agree the true display of the torp is a real cheat, but killing a cheat to have more handicap than the real thing is not a good thing to my eyes.

concerning the display on the NAV, I don't see why it couldn't be the same as the target display.
maybe you could give me some reasons ? I personally don't see any.

[Bellman]

OKOso it's gonna more difficult than the real thing ...
I'm pretty sure unguided torpedoes still have a display to show the theorical path of the torp

:) When you are sure or someone else confirms we can proceed ? I am neutral on 'theoretical' lines I can draw
these on Nav myself and would be happier for SS to provide other map drawing aids (another topic)

OKO
concerning the display on the NAV, I don't see why it couldn't be the same as the target display.
maybe you could give me some reasons ?

In reality I'm sure that the data processing of torp location/speed/orientation is availabe through from FC TD to Nav.
:lol: Thats as sure as you are above ;)

However whether the data exhibits ''twitching'' is another question. It is believable that FC TD display exhibits the signals
LwAmi modelled and passes those to Nav. :hmm:

[OKO]

I didn't talk about drawing tools, but about a sort of a ghost of the torpedo, as it is now, but only theorical, this mean true values for 30 sec then history as for a solution not updated.
Should be easy, very easy to do for SCS.
So it's not about another topic, but this one :yep:


It is believable that FC TD display exhibits the signals
LwAmi modelled and passes those to Nav. :hmm:

What signal are you talking about ? sonar contact for the torp ?
I didn't talked about signal, but theorical path, the path the torp was programmed for.
This path have nothing to do with any signal, it is calculated from the launch point, with torp course and speed set before the launch.
As they did on WWII with a stopwatch, but with a modern graphical display.
There is no signal you can rely on when the torp reach 5 miles away from you ... just because you don't see it anymore on sonar.
And of course, no possibilities to communicate with torp under water.

[Bellman]

:) Mmm ghosts - seems a bit Silent Hunter 3' ish. But I see your point.

My understanding was you wanted a projected (not updated) torp path. Hence my reference to a mere
drawing tool, which of course is another topic. If the projection is updated retrospectively and provides
basic info **only** as I stated above I can live with that .:cool: :up:

Now on the other matter :-
OKOconcerning the display on the NAV, I don't see why it couldn't be the same as the target display

I saidIn reality I'm sure that the data processing of torp location/speed/orientation is availabe through from FC TD to Nav.

Yes of course the usual performance limitations inherent apply.
It would seem that LwAmis original mod allowing wired torp sonar sensor contact feedback was a brave attempt at reality.
In the absence of this, we should retain the existing Nav torp display as an Option but IMO without ''twitching'' sprites :down:

Your 'ghosts' are welcome mon ami. :up: ;)

Except....................Napoleon.

[OKO]

Except....................Napoleon.

well ... you don't have anything to fear about it, Napoleon lost every battle at sea :lol:

about projected path, I really think all modern subs have this kind of feature, so easy to display with modern computer.
Otherwise, you must calculate it yourself, and this will be more workload at a very busy time (when engaging)


but IMO without ''twitching'' sprites
I agree with that and that was the subject of my proposition.
I think this is not that difficult to make for SCS =>
show truth on the weapon for 30 seconds, then considering the torp as a solution and don't update the twitching sprites, but a strait line, showing ALSO when the torp enable without showing the course change, and with the torp disapear at max range.
the only thing to do is just to stop updating the torp course after 30 seconds, and you've got what we need.

[Bellman]

:lol: Sacre Bleu !! Then we agree. :up: :rock:

.....................but Napoleon still haunts us. :rotfl:
.........................and William is just too, too painfull to mention. :arrgh!: :hulk:

.............................Well Les Rosbifs invade you to redress the 'hurt'. :yep: :huh: :o

[Tgio]

How about making the sprites of the torpedo transparent?

I think it could be easily done (they are simple bitmaps placed in a file, after all).

[OKO]

How about making the sprites of the torpedo transparent?

I think it could be easily done (they are simple bitmaps placed in a file, after all).

because if you do that, you won't see anymore your weapon path.
We (me anyway) don't want no information at all on weapons, as this will need to calculate yourself, depending on the weapon speed and target distance, the time the weapon is supposed to hit the target.
Modern sub should have a graphical display as described above.
maybe not the KILO IRL, but considering the amount of workload to engage a target or multiple target in the case of no weapon info at all, you couldn't do it and you will just drop this work if there is any other work to do, when a real crew will do this.
So, considering this, a graphical display on a projected path of the torp is needed.

It would seem that LwAmis original mod allowing wired torp sonar sensor contact feedback was a brave attempt at reality.

I loved that ! The first time i saw this was on SC with NWS MOD, a realistic MOD very interesting, but never finished because of personnal problem of the author.

The ONLY thing to do is to NOT update the torpedo (and missiles ...) course after 30 sec, just the time the torp take the right path to the target.
Do you see something easier for SCS to solve this problem ? me not.

[Tgio]

How about making the sprites of the torpedo transparent?

I think it could be easily done (they are simple bitmaps placed in a file, after all).

because if you do that, you won't see anymore your weapon path.
We (me anyway) don't want no information at all on weapons, as this will need to calculate yourself, depending on the weapon speed and target distance, the time the weapon is supposed to hit the target.

But you could assign a sonar tracker to it, can't you?
It will give you the bearing of the torpedo, and about the time to hit... A simple old clock. And a bunch of mathematic. :zzz:

[XabbaRus]

I think a good solution to be this.

SUBROCs : Torpedo icon shown for flighpath and splashdown marked on NAV and FC display. With the two following variants.

A) After splashdown of torpedo torpedo's predicted path is show depending on whether snake or circle preset was selected. NO feedback given as to whether torpedo has acquired. IE no torpedo track going after the contact.

B) Only splashdown marker is show with no torpedo.

Wire guided torpedos : Feedback as to whether seeker has activated and torpedo is searching is only shown if wires are still connected. If wires are lost or doors closed then torpedo icon travels along last know course and direction.

Other torpedos : Icon show for predicted path, ie wakehomers are not seen to turn into wake once acquired.

This of course would be selectable in options so it could still be kept as is at the moment.

[Bellman]

:) Xab. Good suggestions

SUBROC - Launcher sees icon of flightpath track and splashdown point marked on Nav and FC with either of options A or B.
Preference B for 'reality' and A for 'Easy' Options.

Agree wire-guided suggestions. Other torps indicated by ghosted icon predicting path ?

Elsewhere the 'work-load' was referred to but if the 1.2 Demo points the way by indicating better
SA and Conf performance that load is set to diminish.

If this doesnt materialise LwAmi are currently working on implementing such increased ranges.
We all except, I think, that this combined with more realistic baffles moves us closer to reality.

[Molon Labe]

Amizaur - I agree -'On/Off' From a divers torp operation perspective I would hope for :-

Off-'Real' option non-wire guided do not appear anywhere unless tracked by sonar, we rely only on Active Intercept.
Wired appear only on FC target display and **no** nav unless tracked with sonar. The FC, as I think in real-life,
will be updated while the wire is attached, and that feedback should be enough if you are also in
TMA and reading all other Nav signs. If the FC updates torp data to Nav then let it only show the torp position not
orientation/heading.If you insist on having this info. then it should be provided only after a built-in
time delay.(call it data processing) :o

Many of us do not want the 'gamey' console type torp sprites showing turns and twitching. But I am happy to let them
stand as an option for newcommers or those who want to play their game that way.

Fish Guys, this is a game, if you want realistic missions, join the navy.

Most maps are made for fun, not to pretend to be realistic. I read the reports, I try to imagine what kind of maps the majority likes.

When we play a war we try to make the maps "more" realistic, but its still a game, isn't it?

I second that and have had loads of fun with your missions particularly the seamount located ones. :cool:
Theres room for 'Real' action simulating scenarios and the option of which to use is open to the player.
Providing the designer labels or describes -'the clues are there' I think many of us like both and the
selection is one of time availability( and mood) as 'reality' prescribes possibly longer run-in times.

The future lies with the newcommers and we musnt scare them off with the usual earnest 'reality' driven
sim players anal retentivity. (Guilty here Mi Lud) :yep: Hard-core reality and 'Easy' option entry levels are available in
long-living, much loved, sims like Falcon. Fun and involvement and a friendly supportive community will provide
a hook to a lasting commitment and ensure the future of our game. :up:

Under 'attack' here - call for breakfast- see you. :damn:

Reality-driven scenarios are the only reason I'm around. I cut my teeth on realistic sub v sub scenarios by SCHQ which mostly involved barrier patrols in locations of likely confrontation between the US and Russia (Sea of Okhost, Barents Sea, GUIK Gap, etc). I dealt with limitations in scenario design because we only had subs as playables back then...we don't have that excuse anymore. Especially with LW/Ami, we have the capability to create many interesting balanced and realisic scenarios.

I would advise against scaring away new players with unrealistic, gamey, and pointless scenarios, as well as unrealistic tactics that serve to make new players wonder if they're really playing a naval warfare sim or just Dooming with the kiddies.

[LuftWolf]

What Molon said. :up:

[Bellman]

ML. I agree - its not either or its - lets have both.

See my post under Mission Design - I dont think you can have read it - look at the last half :-
http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=43326&start=50

I will take no lectures on realism from anyone. I will not press you on the character of gameing at the SW - I know -been there done it.

LwAmi is a quantum step towards realism and I hope in my small way I have made some contributions to its progress.

[Bellman]

My frustration is that as a newcommer to DW mission design I started learning the ropes by knocking up some fun ones.
I am preparing some 'Real' life complex scenarios which will utilise LwAmi to very good (better)effect.
These will not be launched until they meet standards which I have achieved previously with Harpoon and Falcon.

But moving on we and SS cant afford to have a sniffy elitist approach to newcomers employing the Easy all on assistance
that ...yes you got it SS built-in. I disagree with your rigidity and my experience with Falcon has demonstrated
that a first class simulator can and must cater for a wide spectrum of players. In my own family I have witnessed
Easy Riders getting hooked and getting the bug for realism.

I dive at max realism 'all off' and I want absolute realism extending to sonar range and baffle coverage et al.
But preserve me from calling others who are less exacting **Doomers**

[XabbaRus]

ML. I agree - its not either or its - lets have both.

See my post under Mission Design - I dont think you can have read it - look at the last half :-
http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=43326&start=50

I will take no lectures on realism from anyone. I will not press you on the character of gameing at the SW - I know -been there done it.

LwAmi is a quantum step towards realism and I hope in my small way I have made some contributions to its progress.

Not taking lectures. Pretty arrogant is that not? I didn't see anyone lecturing here.

As for scaring of newcomers with gamey scenarios, you have to remember that SCS is trying to widen the net of people who might buy DW. That means you have to break them in gently and that is why you have a very good mission editor. You can have the gamey scenarios so people can cut thier teeth and you can have the more realistic scenarios.

As for things whether torpedo tracks are shown on the NAV map or not and on FC and how accurately should be scalable...Like I posted above.

There should be the option to have it like it is now, or have it where there isn't much shown except predicted tracks and splashdown points. Scalability is the key.

This is getting OT but I want to see people who have bought the sim come here and be able to ask questions about stuff works and what to do to be effective. I think they might get scared by suddenly seeing hardcore realism stuff....You know it could put them off. Maybe the forum should be split again with a newby forum for helping people.

[Molon Labe]

I think a lot of peolple are equating "realistic" with "especially challenging." The two things are completely independent of each other. You can make gamey missions hard and realistic missions easy if you'd like.

[Bellman]

There is rightly a call for some 'fun' from even the most experienced quarters-
XabThere is some region in SE Asia where there are lots of sea hills etc in seawater that is the right depth for a sub to
exploit. I think fish or Baron found the area. I have always wanted to play and MP mission using that area as it is
quite small and could be good ** fun.**
:lol: I shared this Fish fun too. Tried(?) to recreate it.:hmm:
''Unrealistic, gamey, and pointless scenarios'' ML or sub v sub fun aimed at those with an hour to spare in MP ?
' Barrier patrol ' is an acquired taste. :o

Yes we musnt scare off newcomers so 'special'areas - lagoons for help/advice and training - thats nice.
SquidB raised training a couple of months back suggesting MP sessions. Perhaps those of us free of Fleet duties
can step up to the line ? ;)

[Miika]

I think a lot of peolple are equating "realistic" with "especially challenging." The two things are completely independent of each other. You can make gamey missions hard and realistic missions easy if you'd like.

I agree totally. In all military operations it is the work of commanders to make the situation as "easy" as possible for one's own side. I think that if you are caught in these movie-style "one in a million change" situations, then you are either losing the war or somebody in command has messed up. These situations of course happen, but if the overall operational situation is under control, the missions given must have limited and well-defined objects. It is up to the mission designer, however, to determine this whether the mission takes place in "controlled" situation or whether all h... has broken loose.

[TLAM Strike]

What’s an unrealistic scenario?!? Ummm the worlds biggest carrier gets nailed on its maiden voyage by a sub that stumbled on it? Sinking two front line carriers hours before the battle starts costing their side the battle? You’re delayed in completing your mission due to bear attack. Sinking a carrier with one torpedo not even aimed at it? Picking off three enemy submarines in a row at the same spot. Sinking 50 ships, trashing 5 large land targets and blowing up a train in one mission? :lol: No matter what we're thinking up I bet something more strange and amazing has happened in real life. :yep:




.......... waiting for someone to identify every incident I've described... :-j

[Orm]

Molon Labe wrote


Reality-driven scenarios are the only reason I'm around. I cut my teeth on realistic sub v sub scenarios by SCHQ which mostly involved barrier patrols in locations of likely confrontation between the US and Russia (Sea of Okhost, Barents Sea, GUIK Gap, etc). I dealt with limitations in scenario design because we only had subs as playables back then...we don't have that excuse anymore. Especially with LW/Ami, we have the capability to create many interesting balanced and realisic scenarios.


I do understand your point but then a player will face two kinds of missions, meaning two kinds of ways to play.
1. Matchup, subs vs. subs FFA, in small areas, classified as unrealistic where you can use all types of “unrealistic” tactics (flushing an opponent with weapons, no limit in how many weapons used per sub…)
2. Barrier/patrol/reco type missions classified as realistic, meaning that your tactic will be more cautious, thoughtful, perhaps stealthy if you have a recon task, and so on.

[Driftwood]

What’s an unrealistic scenario?!? Ummm the worlds biggest carrier gets nailed on its maiden voyage by a sub that stumbled on it? Sinking two front line carriers hours before the battle starts costing their side the battle? You’re delayed in completing your mission due to bear attack. Sinking a carrier with one torpedo not even aimed at it? Picking off three enemy submarines in a row at the same spot. Sinking 50 ships, trashing 5 large land targets and blowing up a train in one mission? :lol: No matter what we're thinking up I bet something more strange and amazing has happened in real life. :yep:




.......... waiting for someone to identify every incident I've described... :-j

Barb is one, and maybe the Harder and the Tang? :know:

[Molon Labe]

There is rightly a call for some 'fun' from even the most experienced quarters-
XabThere is some region in SE Asia where there are lots of sea hills etc in seawater that is the right depth for a sub to
exploit. I think fish or Baron found the area. I have always wanted to play and MP mission using that area as it is
quite small and could be good ** fun.**
:lol: I shared this Fish fun too. Tried(?) to recreate it.:hmm:
''Unrealistic, gamey, and pointless scenarios'' ML or sub v sub fun aimed at those with an hour to spare in MP ?
' Barrier patrol ' is an acquired taste. :o

Yes we musnt scare off newcomers so 'special'areas - lagoons for help/advice and training - thats nice.
SquidB raised training a couple of months back suggesting MP sessions. Perhaps those of us free of Fleet duties
can step up to the line ? ;)

"Barrier patrol" is simply one rationale through which a sub v sub duel can be created. You could also have interceptions based on intel, an attacking sub running into a sub acting as an advanced patrol, etc. Any of these rationale for a sub v sub battle could run under an hour, it depends on the design of the scenario.

[timmyg00]

I guess if we had real missile launch transient warnings in the sim, we wouldn't be having this discussion ;)

TG

[OKO]

You have very big and detectable transient with the LWAMI MOD, TimmyG
very good ones, extremly usefull to detect distant missile launch and to react from this time, far before you hear the TIW report on them.
Did you tried this MOD Timmy ? If not you really must do !It's not a gadget but a real improvmnt in many aspects of the game, and this give much balanced and interesting MP games.

[Bellman]

I have found OKO's **open** scenarios very helpfull - a very generous and open handed 'sharing' contribution
to those new to mission design playing 'catch-up.' :|\

If only his admirable lead had been followed by others. :nope:

[timmyg00]

You have very big and detectable transient with the LWAMI MOD, TimmyG
very good ones, extremly usefull to detect distant missile launch and to react from this time, far before you hear the TIW report on them.
Did you tried this MOD Timmy ? If not you really must do !It's not a gadget but a real improvmnt in many aspects of the game, and this give much balanced and interesting MP games. Sadly, I have not yet had time, even though I have it installed :( . However, from what I can gather, the mod still does not address the need for a report on those transients (which is no reflection on the mod overall... it's a limitation in the code). Akula and Kilo drivers are at a disadvantage without such reports, since they have no historical sonar data (waterfall).

If such a report were implemented in the code, perhaps fewer people would be tempted to toss Stallions around to flush out their opponents ;)

TG

[Driftwood]

What about us poor, deprived Seawolf drivers who don't get that missile transient report??????? :rotfl: I'm just glad that the Lwami Mod addresses it.....hopefully the next patch will include this...........but I'm not holding my breath. :huh:

[Fish]

What’s an unrealistic scenario?!? Ummm the worlds biggest carrier gets nailed on its maiden voyage by a sub that stumbled on it? Sinking two front line carriers hours before the battle starts costing their side the battle? You’re delayed in completing your mission due to bear attack. Sinking a carrier with one torpedo not even aimed at it? Picking off three enemy submarines in a row at the same spot. Sinking 50 ships, trashing 5 large land targets and blowing up a train in one mission? :lol: No matter what we're thinking up I bet something more strange and amazing has happened in real life. :yep:




.......... waiting for someone to identify every incident I've described... :-j

hear hear!

[Orm]

If such a report were implemented in the code, perhaps fewer people would be tempted to toss Stallions around to flush out their opponents ;)

TG

I really begin to be tired by people thinking that they are better than others, or think that they are "saints" when they are in MP. It is what you can call a perfectionist talk like - Firing with no full TMA - Oh my God, what a shame :rotfl:. Don't tell us that no one in your games has flushed on others. I think nobody will believe it.
And so what? To flush is part of the tactics that you can use in matchup and if you get court by it, that's your problem. If you win because of this tactic, that's all what most of the people want.

[LuftWolf]

Akula and Kilo drivers are at a disadvantage without such reports, since they have no historical sonar data (waterfall).

True, but then again, aren't 688/SW drivers at a disadvantage, since they have no missiles to fire? ;)

I don't mind an organic advantage in missile detection for Western platforms, since they are already at an organic disadvantage lacking subrocs at all.

[Fish]

I have found OKO's **open** scenarios very helpfull - a very generous and open handed 'sharing' contribution
to those new to mission design playing 'catch-up.' :|\

If only his admirable lead had been followed by others. :nope:

I think because OKO's missions are a ongoing work, in that case you can make password free maps. When you make maps to play over and over, you can decide to protect the maps from people noting start positions.
However, I always want to help people when they have questions about my maps, although I had a few very unpleasant experiences.

Back to realistic map making, I make sometimes very unrealistic maps, for example, maps with up to five subs FFA.
I think even TLAM Strike does mark this as not posible. :)
Why shouldn't I? People have tons of fun during such a match.

Sure there are people who like the realistic scenario's, I am one of them.
But most like to have one or two hours of fun.

I made a few "realistic" scenarios, one of them you have to drop special forces, and your feed with info during the game, cost me a few weeks to make it all working.
You know what....?
It's left alone! :hmm:

[LuftWolf]

Well, I think the stock detection ranges lend themselves more to "arena" style sub vs. sub matches and make realistic MP missions very difficult to create in such a way that they are fun and balanced.

Based on the experiences I've had with both arena and realistic missions with the detection ranges in the LWAMI Mod, I have to say that realistic missions are much more enjoyable, if only because everything "feels so realistic" (whatever that means), it gives me a thrill, even if I get sunkitated. :yep: :)

[Bellman]

I and many others have had many hours of fun playing the Fish SW scenarios. Xab et al.
There was a call to revisit some 'seamount fun.' I spent hours trying to find similar areas, selecting only those that
seemed to offer the most potential. I would be happy to receive any feedback on my MP scenarios and
am prepared to make adjustments where required .

My jibe ''If only his admirable lead had been followed by others.'' was just a bellyache springing from frustration.
Fish has been very helpfull and Bill has offered assistance by checking scripts/triggers etc.
Molon kindly proofed my proceedures for the SVAK. So support is there but not to be abused.

I confess I am still a Newbie Mission Designer with I think some good ideas but frankly struggling to implement
them whilst learning to manipulatie the software tools. Mais C'est la vie - it will come. I would just ask for
forebearance for 'product' which may fall short of the standards and expectations of the experienced in the interim.

[TLAM Strike]

.......... waiting for someone to identify every incident I've described... :-j

Barb is one, and maybe the Harder and the Tang? :know:

You got one.

Archerfish Vs. Shinano
Albacore and Cavalla Vs. Taiho and Shokaku
Connecticut Vs. Polar Bear AKA ICEX 2003
U-81 Vs. Ark Royal
Batfish Vs. I Class Sub & RO-112 & RO-113
Barb's last war patrol

[timmyg00]

I really begin to be tired by people thinking that they are better than others, or think that they are "saints" when they are in MP. It is what you can call a perfectionist talk like - Firing with no full TMA - Oh my God, what a shame :rotfl:. Don't tell us that no one in your games has flushed on others. I think nobody will believe it. Believe it or not, but that's part of my group's ROE. If you "flush", you're disqualified from any kills you earn in that match.

I'm not passing any public judgement about you or anyone else who uses that tactic, nor do I harbor any real hostility toward those who do... though I will NEVER play a match with someone who does. To each his (or her) own. But if you have a problem with me expressing my opinion or making a joke, that's too bad. And my opinion on the tactic is that it's weak and lazy.


And so what? To flush is part of the tactics that you can use in matchup and if you get court by it, that's your problem. If you win because of this tactic, that's all what most of the people want. Winning, as they say, isn't everything. Most people, hmmm? Do you have numbers? Personally, I'd rather lose knowing that I played the sim as realistically as I could, than win knowing that I exploited a shortcoming in the game to do so.

Have fun!

TG

[Amizaur]

Instead of switching off the actual "weapon truth", I think the best and most realistic thing could be to have the calculated path displayed.
Something like a link on the weapon trajectory with no refresh after 30 sec.
So you will see it only as historic path, and you couldn't see whether the weapon acquired the target or not, but you can still visualize the theorical weapon path.


Amen to that ! :yep: Exactly, this would be harder to do than just disable "weapon truth" but certainly this would be best possible solution !!! :up:

To have somewhat "automated" track for own weapon (with proper id, course and speed) at the start, and later not auto-update it anymore and result would be track reflecting theoretical (projected) weapon position !

I though it would be hard to do, but forgot about linked tracks ! And this indeed could work as linked track from the start, not updated later, so this is probably quite possible to do without programming new functions into the game engine, only use existing ones !

[Molon Labe]

If such a report were implemented in the code, perhaps fewer people would be tempted to toss Stallions around to flush out their opponents ;)

TG

I really begin to be tired by people thinking that they are better than others, or think that they are "saints" when they are in MP. It is what you can call a perfectionist talk like - Firing with no full TMA - Oh my God, what a shame :rotfl:. Don't tell us that no one in your games has flushed on others. I think nobody will believe it.
And so what? To flush is part of the tactics that you can use in matchup and if you get court by it, that's your problem. If you win because of this tactic, that's all what most of the people want.

This isn't the first time I've heard someone complain about people who advocate that perfect TMA is necessary before firing. I have never seen someone actually advocate this point of view. Is this a straw man, or am I missing something?

[OKO]

@Amizaur :

Finally, the weapon projected path just consist to stop refreshing the torpedo course (and only this) after 30 sec, the time the torpedo need to get the right path to the target, and everything else should stay the same (RTE displayed on target display -seeker going red-, speed of the torp and end of weapon life should stay the same)
I don't think this could be possible for modders, but I think this is really not difficult for SCS.

The other solution on ASW missiles Xabbarus talked about is a very nice one.
I'd like to only see the missile trajectory until the torp hit the water, and maybe the circle pattern of the torpedo, of course not updated if the torp acquire a target, until the weapon run out of gas.
This part is a bit more complicated than for the conventionnal torpedoes, where you just need to not update the course of the torp => here you need to create a virtual pattern displayed, you can't just stop updating the course or you will have a straight path for the torp after she hit the water.

So, one easier solution could consist to show the missile path only, and nothing about the torpedo after missile separation.
but this way you will not know about torpedo lifetime, and you will need to put a marker where the torp separate from the missile to see where it is. Not a big deal ...
And on the real thing, I should be the same : they just know where the missile fall and the torpedo duration after this (take out your stopwatch), nothing else, so it's quite close to the real thing.
much closer than the actual thing anyway.

to make it short, 2 easy and simple fix could change lots of things to make it MUCH more realistic, as well as really more interesting in game :

1) For unguided torpedoes (for subs, fregate and aircrafts) : not refreshing the course on the NAV and target display screens after 30 sec of run (very easy fix IMO), whether if these torps are in circle pattern or in snake, the torp should always go right. The commander must just check the seeker going red to know when the torp activate, without knowing anything else (gonna give us some spicy replays lol)

2) For ASW missiles : not showing the torp on NAV and target display screens after the torpedo separate from the missile.
(also very easy for SCS)

But I know a problem :
out of game screens are frozen for a long time now
And I guess these screens couldn't be changed so easily (beta test recall about this)
In the meantime, this option (realistic weapon trajectory display) need to be selectable (yes or no) on options, because noobs and occasionnal players will hate this.
So we need the possibility to select it or deselect it.
And THIS is the main problem, on what I saw about out of game screens during beta tests.

Maybe a collective request (a petition LOL) to them could help to change this.

[Orm]

If such a report were implemented in the code, perhaps fewer people would be tempted to toss Stallions around to flush out their opponents ;)

TG

I really begin to be tired by people thinking that they are better than others, or think that they are "saints" when they are in MP. It is what you can call a perfectionist talk like - Firing with no full TMA - Oh my God, what a shame :rotfl:. Don't tell us that no one in your games has flushed on others. I think nobody will believe it.
And so what? To flush is part of the tactics that you can use in matchup and if you get court by it, that's your problem. If you win because of this tactic, that's all what most of the people want.

This isn't the first time I've heard someone complain about people who advocate that perfect TMA is necessary before firing. I have never seen someone actually advocate this point of view. Is this a straw man, or am I missing something?


I don't know if you were talking to me but I was meaning that rarely an Akula would have a perfect TMA on Seawolf during a matchup. The problem is that this kind of dive are short, "unrealistic" and usually with only one goal - to kill your opponents as fast as possible. So, when you get a tonal, even faint, you take your chances to send your torps or mostly with subrocs to a bearing only contact.
Now, I declare peace with everybody annoyed to me (funny, I am feeling that many are, or am I wrong ;)), and do actually respect all types of tactics used during dives.

[Molon Labe]

Anyone can answer that one if they'd like.

Your response expresses a very different opinion from your original post, however. There is an enormous difference between having perfect TMA and not doing any at all (i.e., firing on a bearing only). It is very dissapointing that in stock DW, you can get away with this unrealistic tactic. It was a losing tactic in Sub Command.

I definitely miss the "tracking phase" of MP matches that was so important back in SC, when one or both players raced to get a good-enough range estimate. We go from Search/acquisition straight to engagement, and we're worse off for it.

Fortunately, I think with LW/Ami, firing on a bearing only will more likely than not be a losing strategy too, although post-shooting aTMA updates might offset any gains. :shifty:

[LuftWolf]

Well OKO has this lovely tactic where after he gets a bearing line... [censored]... and we ended, 30 decoys later, killing each other and the match ended in a draw. :P :)

[darksythe]

Believe it or not, but that's part of my group's ROE. If you "flush", you're disqualified from any kills you earn in that match.


Sorry im late on this post but just wanted to say.
Hear Hear...

Flushing is a very poor tactic one that is only used by those who have very little tactical knowledge. Ill tell yah this much also if you launch a torp, or missile against me with idea where i really am or going youve just signed your boat completely off the books. Not only have you managed to show me where you are, but youve also upset me with that childish tactic enough that i am going to hunt you mercilously, and make sure you never play on my server again.

Do you realize that a good number of us are here to simulate realistic levels of naval warfare. That being told each piece of ordinance you waste cost money to your gov't. Think of it that way.

Once again sorry for the late replys to this topic but hey what can i say i was off battling evil in a different thread.

No hard feelings to the "flushers" just wont have it in my server. :smug:

[Orm]

Anyone can answer that one if they'd like.

Your response expresses a very different opinion from your original post, however. There is an enormous difference between having perfect TMA and not doing any at all (i.e., firing on a bearing only). It is very dissapointing that in stock DW, you can get away with this unrealistic tactic. It was a losing tactic in Sub Command.

I definitely miss the "tracking phase" of MP matches that was so important back in SC, when one or both players raced to get a good-enough range estimate. We go from Search/acquisition straight to engagement, and we're worse off for it.

Fortunately, I think with LW/Ami, firing on a bearing only will more likely than not be a losing strategy too, although post-shooting aTMA updates might offset any gains. :shifty:


My original post was about the possibility to track visually a missile torp even if it would not be physically possible, for example in the case of flushing an opponent. Now, my last post was about to wait or not for a good TMA before launching a torp.
You are complaining that you miss the "tracking phase" of the late SC. I could have the same feeling in realistic dive. But what about 4 subs FFA? How much can you stay realistic?

[LuftWolf]

But what about 4 subs FFA? How much can you stay realistic?

Players who want to play "arena style deathmatches" naturally won't mind the occasional "gamey" tactic, because the whole idea of the mission itself is "gamey."

Player who play realistic missions will prefer to use realistic tactics and that their opponents do the same.

Just as there are fleets out there full of players who love to deathmatch, there are fleets of players out there who will only play realistic missions.

To me, one is not more right than the other. However, as a designer of realism mods, I am not inclined to take into consideration that the work I am doing will make it less enjoyable to play deathmatches, so long as it makes realistic missions more playable, balanced, and fun.

So I am working in one direction, but that reflects only my personal preference in the type of game I want to have. I don't think players who play arena missions and prefer the stock detection ranges are any less DW players, they are just different DW players.

[TLAM Strike]

"Flushing" is a real life tactic. Back in WWII the Japanese would drop a depth charge every so often to try and scare any near by subs in to running. All it really did was give away their position.

Dumb tactic yes, unrealistic no... :yep:

[Orm]

But what about 4 subs FFA? How much can you stay realistic?

Players who want to play "arena style deathmatches" naturally won't mind the occasional "gamey" tactic, because the whole idea of the mission itself is "gamey."

Player who play realistic missions will prefer to use realistic tactics and that their opponents do the same.

Just as there are fleets out there full of players who love to deathmatch, there are fleets of players out there who will only play realistic missions.

To me, one is not more right than the other. However, as a designer of realism mods, I am not inclined to take into consideration that the work I am doing will make it less enjoyable to play deathmatches, so long as it makes realistic missions more playable, balanced, and fun.

So I am working in one direction, but that reflects only my personal preference in the type of game I want to have. I don't think players who play arena missions and prefer the stock detection ranges are any less DW players, they are just different DW players.


TLAM Strike wrote


"Flushing" is a real life tactic. Back in WWII the Japanese would drop a depth charge every so often to try and scare any near by subs in to running. All it really did was give away their position.

Dumb tactic yes, unrealistic no...



Not that I advocate flushing over other tactics (and what some peoples here missed completely in this post as I was referring only to FFA dives that we have in some virtual fleets), but thanks guys, I was suddenly feeling very alone. :)

[Molon Labe]

Anyone can answer that one if they'd like.

Your response expresses a very different opinion from your original post, however. There is an enormous difference between having perfect TMA and not doing any at all (i.e., firing on a bearing only). It is very dissapointing that in stock DW, you can get away with this unrealistic tactic. It was a losing tactic in Sub Command.

I definitely miss the "tracking phase" of MP matches that was so important back in SC, when one or both players raced to get a good-enough range estimate. We go from Search/acquisition straight to engagement, and we're worse off for it.

Fortunately, I think with LW/Ami, firing on a bearing only will more likely than not be a losing strategy too, although post-shooting aTMA updates might offset any gains. :shifty:


My original post was about the possibility to track visually a missile torp even if it would not be physically possible, for example in the case of flushing an opponent. Now, my last post was about to wait or not for a good TMA before launching a torp.
You are complaining that you miss the "tracking phase" of the late SC. I could have the same feeling in realistic dive. But what about 4 subs FFA? How much can you stay realistic?

Well, I wasn't going back to your original post...

The loss of the tracking phase from DW to SC has nothing to do with 4p FFA dives. People played 4p FFA's back in the SC days too. The difference is in the changes from SC to DW, specifically the auto TMA and torpedo acquisistion ranges.

What I'm refering to as the tracking phase of the game is the time after acquisition when this range is being estimated prior to firing. In SC, it took about 8-15 minutes of tracking to get a decent estimate of the range to target in most conditions. Since the target sub would manuever evasively after the weapon was fired, tracking after firing the weapon was very difficult. It was therefore crucial to have a range estimate before firing. Not doing so would put you at a tactical disadvantage if your opponent had already been tracking you, and would prevent you from gaining a tactical advantage if your opponent had not. This was usually where the match was won or lost.

In DW, aTMA will give you a good-enough solution without any significant tracking prior to engagement, and even if you fire on a bearing only, a solution will be provided while the weapon is in transit. The long acquisition range for weapons also makes spray and pray much more effective, so a target can be found rather quickly without a range estimate. Because of this, tracking is nearly unnessesary in DW, and what was the most important part of the match just doesn't matter anymore. Outcomes in DW are much more dependent on luck (of blind fire, of having water <100m deep to take shelter in or having a featureless map that maximizes sensor range), and on the ability of a player to steer weapons around decoys. With so little emphasis on situational awareness, I'd have to say that the amount of skill, judgement, and cleverness that goes into a win in DW has been cut in half from SC.

[darksythe]

"Flushing" is a real life tactic. Back in WWII the Japanese would drop a depth charge every so often to try and scare any near by subs in to running. All it really did was give away their position.

Dumb tactic yes, unrealistic no... :yep:

i believe that the prime words were started by your self. WWII. now ordinance costs alot more money to make then it did then. missiles,torps, Vs depth charges/hedgehogs big difference in price. :know:

[Molon Labe]

"Flushing" is a real life tactic. Back in WWII the Japanese would drop a depth charge every so often to try and scare any near by subs in to running. All it really did was give away their position.

Dumb tactic yes, unrealistic no... :yep:

I think even inflation adjusted, a "dumb" depth charge is far less expensive than a "smart" weapon like a guided torpedo, especially a guided torpedo with a rocket attached to it.

Regardless, if a tactic is dumb, it will become unrealistic. Captains will naturally prefer smart tactics to dumb ones, and those who prefer dumb tactics will fail to return from their patrols at a rate as high as the ones who use smart tactics. :P A good game should reflect this.

[Orm]

Well, I wasn't going back to your original post...

The loss of the tracking phase from DW to SC has nothing to do with 4p FFA dives. People played 4p FFA's back in the SC days too. The difference is in the changes from SC to DW, specifically the auto TMA and torpedo acquisistion ranges.

What I'm refering to as the tracking phase of the game is the time after acquisition when this range is being estimated prior to firing. In SC, it took about 8-15 minutes of tracking to get a decent estimate of the range to target in most conditions. Since the target sub would manuever evasively after the weapon was fired, tracking after firing the weapon was very difficult. It was therefore crucial to have a range estimate before firing. Not doing so would put you at a tactical disadvantage if your opponent had already been tracking you, and would prevent you from gaining a tactical advantage if your opponent had not. This was usually where the match was won or lost.

In DW, aTMA will give you a good-enough solution without any significant tracking prior to engagement, and even if you fire on a bearing only, a solution will be provided while the weapon is in transit. The long acquisition range for weapons also makes spray and pray much more effective, so a target can be found rather quickly without a range estimate. Because of this, tracking is nearly unnessesary in DW, and what was the most important part of the match just doesn't matter anymore. Outcomes in DW are much more dependent on luck (of blind fire, of having water <100m deep to take shelter in or having a featureless map that maximizes sensor range), and on the ability of a player to steer weapons around decoys. With so little emphasis on situational awareness, I'd have to say that the amount of skill, judgement, and cleverness that goes into a win in DW has been cut in half from SC.

We had a talk previously about that in one post. That's been where I was complaining about how subrocs are killing the dives. About what you just said, I approve you 100 %.
I just have to feel guilty as I drive an Akula with, of course, subrocs at my disposition. It is clear that with this weapon, and an Akula can load more than 20 for one dive, and with the over capable aTMA it is easy to play in a way that some peoples don’t like.

[Orm]

i believe that the prime words were started by your self. WWII. now ordinance costs alot more money to make then it did then. missiles,torps, Vs depth charges/hedgehogs big difference in price. :know:

In that case, I would say that you are wrong. If we are talking about high intensity conflict meaning a full-scale war, the consideration of ordinance cost loose ground vs. the priority of getting a key target eliminated. Didn't it work like that during the last Gulf War?

In our case, of FFA matchup, I would say that key targets are the opponent's subs.

[Bellman]

Seems to me that the distinction in MP is between two main types of scenario Gamey or real with shades of grey between.

The debate here and on other sim forums is circuitous and neverending between 'types' of simmers.
Most of us move easily between categorisations.(Mood/time/adrenalin)

Merely label Scenarios clearly and make provision in Hyperlobby, or wherever we meet, for the simmer to choose -
Gates of access for like-minded players. (Jousting or Battle.) Green or red gates ? Whatever. :arrgh!:

[Orm]

Seems to me that the distinction in MP is between two main types of scenario Gamey or real with shades of grey between.

The debate here and on other sim forums is circuitous and neverending between 'types' of simmers.
Most of us move easily between categorisations.(Mood/time/adrenalin)

Merely label Scenarios clearly and make provision in Hyperlobby, or wherever we meet, for the simmer to choose -
Gates of access for like-minded players. (Jousting or Battle.) Green or red gates ? Whatever. :arrgh!:

rgr that :)

[Fish]

Imagine, its war you are in a Seawolf ahead of a ARG group, your task is to make sure the group can pass a chockpoint freely.
Latest info tells you there is a kilo in the area.
You can't find the bastard, but you know he is there lurking in the coastal waters.
The group is closing in, first FFG is passing and the Wasp is close to the point now.
Then out of nowhere the Kilo is attacking launching torpedos, and missiles.
You know where he is now, you start tracking now, because you are to noble to shoot at a baring only.............. :rock:

[timmyg00]

"Flushing" is a real life tactic. Back in WWII the Japanese would drop a depth charge every so often to try and scare any near by subs in to running. All it really did was give away their position.

Dumb tactic yes, unrealistic no... :yep:

I think even inflation adjusted, a "dumb" depth charge is far less expensive than a "smart" weapon like a guided torpedo, especially a guided torpedo with a rocket attached to it.

Regardless, if a tactic is dumb, it will become unrealistic. Captains will naturally prefer smart tactics to dumb ones, and those who prefer dumb tactics will fail to return from their patrols at a rate as high as the ones who use smart tactics. :P A good game should reflect this. Ditto. Depth Charges are cheap... Stallions are not (IRL, anyway). They're free in DW... but maybe they shouldn't be :hmm:

TG

[Bellman]

Fish. '' Imagine its war..."

The British Board of Film Censors Electronic Media Department. Has awarded this game scenario Trailer an 'X' Certificate.

Mouthwatering stuff Fish - with all this Reality PC I am not sure whether I should say:-
Hey it will be 'fun' to play ! or Hey this sounds good 'real' life stuff !

No I think I'll cut it both ways and say Hey thats gonna be **real**fun !

The Dutch Third Way ?

**Summary** Thanks fun+reality :rock: :up:

[OKO]

Well OKO has this lovely tactic where after he gets a bearing line... [censored]... and we ended, 30 decoys later, killing each other and the match ended in a draw. :P :)

and we need another one :o)
I lost 2 subs on ~30 matches, from the day you released your patch, and one against you ;) , the other one against Cyklop (I could have immediatly my revenge here). I sunk all others, this mean all Akula I met.

As there is very few people online these days, and as I changed ISP and didn't played for 2 weeks, I miss MP matches ...

My tactic was NOT to send fish on LOB =>

1) making a TMA on all contacts of the arena (using only 1 tracker for each, spherical for noisy and TA for quiet or distant ones, sometimes both on one close -mean noisy- contacts to have immediate position)
Of course, this tactic is MUCH more easy to do with the Seawolf and the WAA than with the 688i.
really MUCH more easier, say 10 times.

2) launching 2 fish

3) just after this using active (1 to 3 ping) to find the new contact : the ennemy sub.
usually I find him after 1 to 5 minutes of active work, and need 1 to 5 (usually 2 or 3) ping for that.
But sometimes it's more difficult than expected and I need around 10 pings before finding him.

Why launching fishes before using active ? to reduce the reaction time of my opponent. The first thing he will hear will be TIW, then active is no more an indiscretion.

4) guiding weapons to him (and evading with eratic course and speed change) and opening seeker at 1 mile, after a last ping to confirm his position
Of course, as soon as I get him on active, I use a perpendicular course from his position and stop using active until the torps are close to the contact and I need another one to redirect my torps and to open the seeker at the right time : 1 mile, no more, not less.
why no more not less ? =>
- more : the target has too much time to make an evasive manoeuver
- less : my torp could fail to acquire the target properly.


That's because I made TMA on EVERY other contact I could find the ennemy sub in 15 to 20 minutes in ~ 15 to 20 miles around my ship
If I didn't do that, I couldn't find him on the active contacts.
Using active is not that easy, especially from the date you released your MOD.
I think it's even more difficult than to make a TMA on 1 tracker.
but this is very effective when you are trained.

If I see a transient from an Akula, I go 90° left or right, 20 knts for 2 minutes at maximum depth (I'm always deep on a sub match, except to check the other layer sometimes) then slow down to combat speed (14 or 15 knts depending on my sub -I never use the Akula now-).
The fact is : if you are at 2000 ft (seawolf) or 1500ft (688i) you are so far from the surface the stallion or the SSN-27 must fall really near you to acquire you. Especially if you do evasive manoeuver as mentionned above when you see the transient.

I don't flush my opponent as I only use 2 torps each time, and not a wall of torpedoes as I see my opponent often do.

As you need to be at less than 7 miles (in best conditions) to see the other nuke sub, and as I play most sub matches on doggy deep scenario (say 95% of time) with 25 miles diameter area, we could play for hours without detecting each others.
With active, matches are way shorter BUT very interesting :
I gave informations on me but I grab MORE informations with this tactic, giving me near always the advantage from this time : he know my bearing but I know his position.

Of course, if I find the ennemy on the TA BEFORE sending my fishes, I won't release them before I have a good TMA on him.
I will not kill a so presious advantage !
but anyway, as soon as I released fish on the TMA solution, I will use active to confirm distance and to track him until he is dead.
It's soooo easy to find a contact with active when you know the bearing ...

But one thing I'm pretty sure : I can't see how a real commander of a nuke COULDN'T use active when fighting another nuke ...
just because once you are detected (on you TIW) active is no more revelant for the ennemy and give you WAY more accurate informations, and let you track the contact even if you need to evade, then kill your TMA on him (I'm talking about manual TMA and not aTMA cheat ...)

Silent attack are made against surface ship, much more noisy than a submarine.
Here you can do the fight without active, and you also need to be as stealth as possible to avoid aircrafts to detect you.
But on sub match, active is the real key ... after work on passive as mentionned above.

[OKO]

Imagine, its war you are in a Seawolf ahead of a ARG group, your task is to make sure the group can pass a chockpoint freely.
Latest info tells you there is a kilo in the area.
You can't find the bastard, but you know he is there lurking in the coastal waters.
The group is closing in, first FFG is passing and the Wasp is close to the point now.
Then out of nowhere the Kilo is attacking launching torpedos, and missiles.
You know where he is now, you start tracking now, because you are to noble to shoot at a baring only.............. :rock:

In that case, your job is to use active, regularly, to protect the front of the convoy.
If you did it, the KILO just couldn't have been in position to engage neither you nor the convoy.

[OKO]

With so little emphasis on situational awareness, I'd have to say that the amount of skill, judgement, and cleverness that goes into a win in DW has been cut in half from SC.

Not with manual TMA.
On the opposite, this need more skill to make a good TMA on DW compared to SC.
Even active is WAY more difficult now (with the MOD ...)
But you absolutly right about game with aTMA ...
the aTMA just kill the game.

I know you use manual TMA, so I don't understand how you could say that Molon Labe.
maybe you were talking only about aTMA games ...

I would have said, on the opposite, DW need MORE skill than SC :
you have a very close to reality inertia on DW when you could make a 180° with a nuke at high speed in 5 sec on SC, you need to use very specific TMA pattern (no course/depth/speed change during data record) where you could do whatever you wanted with SC with any counterpart as in DW.
I don't call that 1/2 the skill from SC but TWICE the skill, Molon Labe.

Whatever the way you dig it, there is one thing to do on DW to have deep and interesting games, I say that from the first day of the release, and even on beta test, and I'm pleased to see NOW most veteran agree with this.
This thing is easy to do : switch off the aTMA.
And welcome to a new world.

[Molon Labe]

Imagine, its war you are in a Seawolf ahead of a ARG group, your task is to make sure the group can pass a chockpoint freely.
Latest info tells you there is a kilo in the area.
You can't find the bastard, but you know he is there lurking in the coastal waters.
The group is closing in, first FFG is passing and the Wasp is close to the point now.
Then out of nowhere the Kilo is attacking launching torpedos, and missiles.
You know where he is now, you start tracking now, because you are to noble to shoot at a baring only.............. :rock:

Oh, come on Fish, you know as well as I do that firing a snapshot down a TIW bearing is competely different from firing on the bearing of first contact.

If the target beats you at the situational awareness game, getting a snapshot off helps level the playing field, forcing the target to cease tracking (for resteering or firing another salvo) in order to evade your weapons.

On the other hand, in the case of first contact, firing prematurely prevents you from gaining superior situational awareness and throws away an advantage that you could have had. (Except in stock DW aTMA matches, since tracking isn't an important part of the game...)

[Molon Labe]

With so little emphasis on situational awareness, I'd have to say that the amount of skill, judgement, and cleverness that goes into a win in DW has been cut in half from SC.

Not with manual TMA.
On the opposite, this need more skill to make a good TMA on DW compared to SC.
Even active is WAY more difficult now (with the MOD ...)
But you absolutly right about game with aTMA ...
the aTMA just kill the game.

I know you use manual TMA, so I don't understand how you could say that Molon Labe.
maybe you were talking only about aTMA games ...

I would have said, on the opposite, DW need MORE skill than SC :
you have a very close to reality inertia on DW when you could make a 180° with a nuke at high speed in 5 sec on SC, you need to use very specific TMA pattern (no course/depth/speed change during data record) where you could do whatever you wanted with SC with any counterpart as in DW.
I don't call that 1/2 the skill from SC but TWICE the skill, Molon Labe.

Whatever the way you dig it, there is one thing to do on DW to have deep and interesting games, I say that from the first day of the release, and even on beta test, and I'm pleased to see NOW most veteran agree with this.
This thing is easy to do : switch off the aTMA.
And welcome to a new world.

aTMA games are the norm. I welcome a manual TMA match at any time, but they are not easy to get.

I forgot who said this before, but whoever it was was right on the money: new players, or players wanting to spend time at other stations, deserve to have a TMA autocrew that does not cheat so that they can play using the TMA autocrew in dives with the manual TMA players. (We were able to do this in Sub Command without a problem)

Since the aTMA cheats, we can't use manual TMA in dives were aTMA is allowed. That means divers like myself are stuck in aTMA dives in all but a few exceptional cases.

None of my complaints above apply to manual TMA dives with the LW/Ami mod. Those are definitely skill dives. :up:

[OKO]

well , I solved this problem, Molon Labe => I'm always hosting and never allow aTMA LOL
that's true, I didn't do a game with aTMA from a very long time, and won't do it anymore.
I just tell to everyone before launching game that they won't have this, and people who don't like this just quit.
Then we have always nice games.

I just changed ISP
my connection is now 11.5 Mbps download (real, for 20mbps theorical) 950 kbps upload (for 1mbps theorical) and ping are less than 20ms on my gateway usually beetween 100 to 150 ms with USA. (I just checked this board at 134ms) And this is very stable, no lost paquets.
So I can now host a very laaaarge game with lots of people.
With manual TMA of course :roll:

As my connection now can handle more than 20 peoples, people not trained with TMA can share the platform with other one.
This is why MS is made for.

[Fish]

OKO, I am not against manual TMA, I am not against tracking before shooting ( I do that most of the times, only when I get bored I send some bloodhounds out).
But what about new people, you forge them to use manual TMA.
I know from experience some people never get the hang of manual TMA.
So what, shut up fool. :-?
Go to the Seawolves if you want to play. ;)

[Mau]

Ok then

But is it possible for the FFG? really?

I am using this platform all the time because I am a Skimmer.
OKO can say again how you do it. In the next patch it is saying that now we wil be able to do it for the real first time. What do they mean?
It seems very difficult to do that on the plot paper of the FFG.

I will be looking at it

Mau

[Bellman]

TG. Ditto. Depth Charges are cheap... Stallions are not (IRL, anyway). They're free in DW... but maybe they shouldn't be Hmmm


An excellent idea - a 'real' fiinancial constraint forcing difficult weapon selection choices. :cool:

Agreement on values, implementation and policing would present some difficulties
But it is a feature incorporated in many games. Sometimes in campaigns by supply shortages.

Its a pity the DW scenario designer is unable to limit weapon availability by one means or another.

[LuftWolf]

Its a pity the DW scenario designer is unable to limit weapon availability by one means or another.

I'm pretty sure they can... :hmm:

[Bellman]

Posted query moons ago - told no. :hmm:

''Pretty sure'' :roll:

Come-on if you think it can be done please point to the source -
help/corrections backed by facts like Page No from the Mission Designer manual etc. etc. :P :yep:

I will be happy to stand corrected and happy that the feature **is** present. :D

[Bellman]

:D Would be nice to have your views on TGs point -
:lol: Just so we dont lose the baby with the bathwater. ;)

[LuftWolf]

Ok, no they can't.

In terms of an economic model for weapons use, I'm not sure that is really workable given the scope of the game.

And if it were, then there is trying to get SCS it implement it...

[TLAM Strike]

Posted query moons ago - told no. :hmm:

''Pretty sure'' :roll: Ummm yes you can. You can limit the number a player is allowed to use with Approach Goals. If the weapon approaches the player with in 0.02 Miles the goal triggers and you have another that triggers if the 1st goal is triggered so many times. If the player tries to use too many of one weapon he is penalized with a script (Damage etc) or loses points via a Trigger. Of course you inform the player of this restriction in the mission brief (i.e. ‘You are allowed to use only 6 Harpoons in this mission, using more will result in your destruction’). You can even track the number of weapons across [real] campaigns like this using the User Doctrine Language.

[Bellman]

:up: Ok TLAM thats a restraint, a limit, on quantity fired but thats not the same as limiting quality.(usefull though -thanks)
But can the designer limit the selection of the weapon types loaded and their quantity (OT) ?

''Its a pity the DW scenario designer is unable to limit weapon **availability** by one means or another.''

Short of choosing between platforms like ....with the Kilos. :hmm:

[Bellman]

....................also is it possible using your example to script +penalise the player for using a weapon type (Harpoon in the example.) ?
That would be neat - a work around.

But then if one weapon others too and we are home and dry ?

[TLAM Strike]

But can the designer limit the selection of the weapon types loaded and their quantity (OT) ? Well limiting the number a player can fire is basicly limiting the number they can load. They can load extra but they can't be used and are thus wasted space. :yep:

[TLAM Strike]

....................also is it possible using your example to script +penalise the player for using a weapon type (Harpoon in the example.) ?
That would be neat - a work around.

But then if one weapon others too and we are home and dry ?With a Approch Trigger set it to be approched by SideX>Civi>Missile>Harpoon and only Harpoons will be counted. You then simply set a trigger that is triggered after X number of Approch Triggers are triggered and the player is penalized. :know:

[Bellman]

So you also are able to limit by type in the scenario ?
1. No X weapons or no X and Y weapons available to player and/or
2. If player deploys X or X and Y they are penalised.

[Bellman]

Our posts crossed :huh:

So your last - we can set limit on Harpoon to 1 ?
And if required limit on another weapon in the same scenario to 1 ?
Then we have type limit ?

[Bellman]

.... that would get to first base but still leaves us facing how to make the player themself make 'real'
deployment decisions based on 'real' financial restraints. TGs original point (I think)

[MaHuJa]

In this way, we can certainly limit *which* weapons are allowed to be used at all. But I don't know if we are able to keep a count of how many.

[TLAM Strike]

Let me clarify. The Approach Trigger keeps count. You have another trigger set up for when so many Approach Triggers are activated which limits the number of weapons the player can use. Lets say in a campaign a player has 8 Harpoons available, it would go something like this...

>Player fires 3 harpoons in mission 1
Approach Goal 1 Fired
Approach Goal 2 Fired
Approach Goal 3 Fired
More than 8 Trigger not fired.
>Player fires 4 in mission 2
Check Harpoon Stores Triggers
-Goal 1 Fired
-Goal 2 Fired
-Goal 3 Fired
--Goals 1 to 3 removed
Approach Goal 4 Fired
Approach Goal 5 Fired
Approach Goal 6 Fired
Approach Goal 7 Fired
More than 8 Trigger not fired.
>Player fires 2 in mission 3
Check Harpoon Stores Triggers
-Goal 1 Fired
-Goal 2 Fired
-Goal 3 Fired
-Goal 4 Fired
-Goal 5 Fired
-Goal 6 Fired
-Goal 7 Fired
--Goals 1 to 7 removed
Approach Goal 8 Fired
Approach Goal 9 Fired
-More than 8 Trigger fired.
--Penalize Player Script Run

[Bellman]

:) Thanks - implementation in a campaign taken on board. :cool:

BellmanIts a pity the DW **scenario **designer is unable to limit weapon availability by one means or another.

But in designing a single scenario what is the lowest fire limit per weapon ?
If its one then a penalty can impose an effective ban on the use of that weapon. If 2 + then kill rate
and target's ability to take damage determines the criteria for design limitation and its acceptabilty.

Then*if*the single scenario design limit is applicable to one weapon potentialy selectable on that platform
then the same facility applies to others too ?

Presumably a designer could also set, and warn of, a system failure triggered by use of particular weapon/s ?

PS. Sorry Mods. this topic has strayed OT and should be in 'Mission Design' :yep:

[TLAM Strike]

Then*if*the single scenario design limit is applicable to one weapon potentialy selectable on that platform
then the same facility applies to others too ? Well you will need to make (or copy) a entirely new set of Triggers for other weapons/boats in the mission, but basically you can limited the player(s) to any number of diffrent weapons in any combonation. In fact an intire side can be limited to the same pool of weapons- just make sure to add extra goals for the AI's inventory.

Presumably a designer could also set, and warn of, a system failure triggered by use of particular weapon/s ? Yep the scripts allow for platforms to take damage to certain systems or can destroy the player's ship or end the mission right then and there.

PS. Sorry Mods. this topic has strayed OT and should be in 'Mission Design' :yep: And made a sticky I think since this is a popular question.

[Bellman]

:up: It hasnt 'stuck' in MD yet.

Yep - got that and sorry to labour the point but you talk of 'numbers of weapons.' Does that extend to types too.
That is to say can the designer not only inhibit quantity but the availabilty of a particular type of weapon.
Egs. Say the player in the pre-dive Weapon Loadout screen is prohibited from loading Shkvals onboard his Ak ?
I gathered this designer limitation was not possible ? If so then I am still facing -
But in designing a single scenario what is the lowest fire limit per weapon ?
If its one then a penalty can impose an effective ban on the use of that weapon. If 2 + then kill rate
and target's ability to take damage determines the criteria for design limitation and its acceptabilty.

Cant find my original post (months ago) but I'm sure when I previously raised this question
the answer was no (Fish or OKO ?) :hmm:

[Amizaur]

Long ago I posted some though about how to make MP mode (and SP too in some degree) more fun, challenging and realistic.
I had such ideas:


- For MP (and maybe SP too) games, the points earned would be DIVIDED by the number of weapons fired (or by "cost" of all weapons fired, so as Akula you could prefer using torps because they are much cheaper than SUBROCs). This way "flushing" shots or excessive use of torpedos (wall of torps or 3-4 torps launches at single target) would be severly penalised, and player that wants to get higher possible score, wold try to achieve the mission goal with lowest possible number of weapons, or lowest overall cost of launched weapons. Of course there are priorites like in real life, getting killed trying to save a weapon would be stupid and you'd lose even more points ;)

- second, a variation of first, probably even better - every weapon would have a "cost" in points assigned (more expensive more than cheap ones) and the cost of launched weapons would be substracted from mission points earned. So if you complete the mission by launching 8 torpedos at single poor tgt, you would end with negative mission score :P
Of course Russian weapons would me much cheaper than western, even SUBROC could be cheaper than an ADCAP... or maybe not... to be determined.

- third idea - for quick MP missions. Every playable platform would have a "cost" in $ or in point assigned, possibly realistic. So Seawolf would be awfully expensive, Akula cheaper than 688I, and Kilo very cheap. Air platforms and FFg - to be determined, but air platform is very very helpful in scenario so could be quite expensive.

Each side would have a budget in $ (or points) assigned, and could buy only so many platforms to be within this budget. This way they could spend their points on one expensive Seawolf, or three of four 688Is instead.

If blue side decides to buy only one kicking-ass platform then well, they would have to share it by multistation to play all :-). And will be outnumbered too :P
The red side would have to decide if spend their points on two Akulas II or maybe one Akula Improved and 4 or 6 Kilos for the same money ?
I guess each side wouldn't know what platforms their counterparts chosed, so wouldn't know what they will have to fight - one Akula or six Kilos ? :)
The single Seawolf not always would be optimum choose I guess. How many Kilos Imp could be bought for $3 Billions ? :-j 10 ? 30 ? ;) Would single Seawolf prevail if opposed 10 Kilo Imp simultaneously ? :P

I think some interesting dilemas and interesting mission could be played this way, and no more anyone would have to worry about balance because good but expensive platforms would be simply outnumbered, with the leading example of the Seawolf :)

But this one idea (and possibly all) would have to be realised by SCS. I'm not sure if mission designers are able to realise at least second idea (mission score points reduced by cost of all weapons fired) ?

And maybe the last idea could be at least partially realised by mission designers (make set of missions with same $ cost for all sides and most attractive combinations of platforms... nope it wouldn't work... all players would have to chose combination of both side's platforms before the fight, not possible and too many combinations)

We could also write RULES. Make missions with all possible platforms in enaugh numbers, and each side would be obligated to chose only combination (class and number) of platforms to not exceed mission "budget", cost of each platform would be given in mission description. But this would work ONLY if non-human-controlled platforms were not used in mission as AI platforms... :cry: is that possible to make by mission design ??

[LuftWolf]

Amizaur, those are some really good ideas.

Perhaps some fleets should consider adopting them. ;) :)

[Bellman]

Ami. Some very good ideas.

Many of us feel, I'm sure that in the absence of self-control, we would like to see some means of effectively limiting
weapon deployment with 'some' real-life constraints.

I take it that there is no software method which could be applied to count player launched weapons ? Then dump this
to HD or into the post action mission report summmary ? :hmm:

[TLAM Strike]

Yep - got that and sorry to labour the point but you talk of 'numbers of weapons.' Does that extend to types too.
That is to say can the designer not only inhibit quantity but the availabilty of a particular type of weapon. If you can control the number of particular weapons used you can also control the types of weapons by not allowing any of that weapon to be used.

[Bellman]

:sunny: Thanks TLAM - Thats a big **yes** :up: :rock:

[Bellman]

:) re 3 above - anyway possible to count weapons. actualy launched in a game ? Dump out ? :hmm:

[TLAM Strike]

Yes but its so difficult I wouldn't bother trying. You would need to make goals for every possible fired weapon and a trigger that creates a trigger (from a selection of triggers) and removes the prevous trigger to give the number of weapons fired on the debrief screen.

[Amizaur]

:lol: