My comments earlier are basically somewhat offhanded remarks about the objective/subjective problem. Most DW Scenarios are objectively functional. About the only ones that are not are those that started in water too shallow for the FFG since its draft was corrected in 1.04, and those are getting fixed. It's just seems silly for me or to certify, for example, SeaQueen's RIMPAC mission, since we know without even playing it that it won't be "broken" and anything else I might have to say is just my opinion. (Then again, that's never stopped me before...too easy!!!:hmm:)

I'm prone to goof up as much as the next person. Have you played that one, btw? What did you think? I worried it was too easy. I don't like how they make the improved KILO basically a supersub because while it's good, it isn't THAT good. Lately I've been playing with Harpoon mostly, but I haven't by any stretch given up on Dangerous Waters. I just have been interested in different questions lately (STK ops and stuff).

No, you're not as prone to goofs as the next person, because you keep your scenarios KISS-simple. There aren't a lot of triggers, scripts, etc. invovled that could cause something to go wrong. This is kind of what I mean by taking note of different designers. When you put something out, I expect it to be large, open-ended, simple, and reliable. I also know I'm probably going to beat it on the first try.

As for RIMPAC, I played on manual TMA, and I ended up bloggling the positions of the screen ships before I had to go deep to avoid detection. I ended up within about 4nm of one of the DDG's because of that, but the AI couldn't capitalize on that. After evading or or two shots from the SVTTs I was in position to take out the Nimitz. I ended up two hits short since to of the wakehomers went backward first, but a breif sprint and a few shanked ASROCs later and the Nimitz was on the bottom.

The design was all fine, but I thought that it was rather sad that the AI couldn't hit me when they should have had me on active or at least triangulated passive.

Manual TMA is part of the fun! :-) Did it draw a highly offset angle for you or was it pretty much straight in?

Yeah... sometimes the AI is slow to take shots. It's strange though, because sometimes it is too quick and endangers itself.

So long as I didn't goof things. :-) When I play that one, I make it my goal to not have anything shot at me until after I've hit the CVN. Once I start running, they can shoot all they want. My theory is that any torpedoes are bad torpedoes, hence, privately I consider the mission a failure if they manage to get a shot off at all. Ultimately the scenario is pretty similar to NATO EXWAR Exercise except someone said they wanted to attack a CSG so I figured I'd oblige them. If you can do well in that one, you can do well in this one.

They came pretty much straight on.

I thought this one was a bit harder than the other one. The screen was harder to penetrate, and the skimmers had more firepower to bring to bear. I don't think the other scenario had any ASROC shooters, and there were definitely no airborne helos. Skimmers generally do a poor job of reacting because they race in with their sonars washed out, so helos and ASROC capability can make a big difference.

Interesting. I tend to prefer an angle that's a little bit offset because I can more easily slip around the escorts. Then drive right at high value units.

In NATO EXWAR, the escorts are picked randomly so it should be different every time. Also, in a later version, I also added airborn helos, because I realized they never had time to get a helo airborn. Sometimes there's VLA and sometimes there's not. It depends on what escorts are drawn. Also, the shotgun ship should always have VLA.

My read on it was that the formation was frontloaded and broad enough that going in from the side wouldn't get me a shot. I guess that depends on whether or not the escorts' TACTASS would hear me at 68 cross-layer, which now that I think about it is probably unlikely. So yeah, if I could attack from the side, this would be about as easy as NATO was.

The opportunity space is definitely smaller against a CSG v. an ESG, I think, due to the larger number of escorts, but so far I haven't had too much trouble pulling it off. This might be because I play DW with a maneuvering board and write down TIME/BEARING/DISTANCE on my white board, for targets of interest. In that sense, I then to be a little more scientific about course changes than most people.

I just noticed this old thread. In general, I agree.

SC/DW scenarios have always been a confusing mixed bag which has kept me from investing significant time in these two games. The engines and platforms are mouth watering attractive. However, the scenarios too often leave you frustrated with what you are supposed to do it, how to do it, and bugs and things that don't work.

Too many of the scenarios that work as designed turn into little riddles or puzzles as opposed to questions of repeateable skills development and utilization.

Althought a rating system would not solve all the underlying problems, not having to wade through frustrating and pointless scenarios would be a key help. The system should also rate scenarios by a number of essential parameters like:

Bug checked.
Difficulty.
Length.
Hot or cold.
Skill set focus.
Complete briefing (or assumed knowledge like having read some novel).
...

I can recommend the mission "Aleutian Operations" by Furia, because it's is challenging and has lots of different objectives. The only thing that I didn't like is that you have to sent your helo away to rescue a pilot and because of the huge distance you constanly lose the link. Apart from that the mission is just great!:rock: