I think that's a lot more along the lines of what I'm thinking of, but I'd prefer not to FORCE the player to do anything. If the player wants to hang themselves, they should be able to do it. I wish there was a way to do things like reference the maximum sensor range against a target, or what not, and do the math so that you could actually calculate the sensor area covered, and have it spend on all the variables involved.

I guess I need to fix that. Remember kiddies, this is a draft. Please don't crucify me. :-)

You should try playing it in the 688I. I'm more interested in results in that.

SQ: :roll: I wish !! :o :arrgh!: ;)

You may have to reappraise my previous. I was running LwAmi Preview on 1,03 and not stock,
unintentionaly I may add. I have now completed a new install with Stock 1.03 on a separate
HD and will give the 688 an outing.

PS. No Sound Mod added this time and so far no ghostly twanger. Maybe the Mod got corrupted at my end :hmm:

I suspected as much. This is one case where I felt like what I was seeing in the stock DW was more realistic than what I was hearing about in LWAmi. *shrug*

Nothing in what I said prevents the player from hanging themselves. What I described rewards the player for using 'correct' tactics, he can still do something stupid if that's his pleasure :arrgh!:

Do something stupid oh yeah ive made plenty of mistakes and so has many others ive played with including my adversary going to the toilette before wepons free returning only to find his frigate had been pummeled by my 76cm gun :lol:

SQ - Third time playing, a bigger challenge with 688 in stock.

The Ak was harder to find but I got a very, very faint tonal, shallow which the Replay showed was at about 20 nm.
Good fight before she shrimped and I explored around with my remaining 48 which put the Typhoon up to
20 knots where she gave away the path to her final resting place. A more edgy contest, 688 v Ak, which will be
nice to reprise in MP. Pleased to report no guitar playing ;)

Wouldn't it take the player's decision about what the best compromise between stealth and search rate out of the players hands, though?

In order to get sensor coverage for particular piece of ocean to count, you'd have to go no greater than the prescribed speed.
Imagine you're a smart player who has never seen a search manual or operations analysis textbook, and doesn't know what the optimum decision he might make is, but was clued in enough to realize the compromises involved in search, and wants to experiment.

I decided I was willing to go faster and accept a narrower search width because I could make the area searched up with increased speed, and I didn't think the bad guy was good enough to capitalize on my decreased stealth. If my increased speed was greater than what one decided was smart, then the mission wouldn't be completed even if, statistically speeking, he had achieved the required probability of clearence. It might not necessarily be the smartest thing in the world for him to have done, but it's possible to be successful doing it anyway.

It just seems kind of pedantic to design a mission that can only be completed using a certain tactic. I'd much rather design a mission where it might be possible to do any number of things and still be successful, even if they aren't necessarily optimal. It makes it more fun.

I would like to make some observations from playing this scenario.

The Kara Seas scenario tasks the 688 player to locate and eliminate a Russian SSBN, in the Kara Sea Boomer bastion -
Four Stars. Time frame 4/88 WW3. The Russians are expected to surge their SSBNs anti USA CVBGs.
The OA is appx 4000 sq, nm and 90% ice covered with an abundance of icebergs. Note also ice coverage varies from
about 75% in the West to 92% in the East Kara receives large amounts of freshwater so salinity is variable.
Waters have a mean depth of 110 m. ISP varies and Layers from 350-650 ft. were observed.

Planning the mission pre-launch the crucial considerations are :
1. What is the likely egress route for a SSBN ?
2. What SSN escort/s can be anticipated ?
3. What proceedures will maximise success ?

ROUTE:
It is unlikely that either the SSBN would exit, or the 688 enter, by the very shallow Southern Kara Strait.
Therefore one would expect the 688 would be at the Northernmost sector of Kara, or possibly in
the Barents Sea and the SSBN could be expected to be proceeding in a cumulatively Northern direction
to the Barents Sea. In the scenario the 688 starts at the South and the SSBN (Mus'nt spoil things) patrols rather
than routes. OK, this option was taken probably for replaybility, and that is fine if the brief were to state -
' You have penetrated the SSBN bastion - SSBNs known to be taking part in a localised operation.'
But for realism given the brief I would expect the designer to make a stab at Northerly routes for the Reds.

ESCORT/S:
In RL we should see Akula/s escorting, screening, snowploughing, shadowing. So pre-game what can be anticipated.
The Aks standoff capacity is iced,so the 688 v Ak duel/s is promising. Given a long range tonal, which platform
is it and how close is the escorter/escortee. ?

PROCEEDURES.
Not beeing party to the pros 'search manuals' or operational analysis proceedures, the task is like pursuing
burglars over a golf course at night in pitch black conditions with a weakly powered torch. How can you maximise your
chances of collaring one or more ? The one carrying the loot (SSBN) is vital but where, and how close, are his friends ?
If you attack one be sure his friends are not close enough to come to his aid.

The OA is 3900 sq. nm. so the search technique must be trade-off between speed (with relative blindness)
and stealthy listening. Generaly we can dive to suitable depths and progress at speed, slow and listen, come over
the layer (if present or shallow) and carry out a comprehensive search. Dive, speed up etc. The critical choices
are how much to zig zag and seeing the speed runs as links in a critical path analysis chart, how long should
they be for most effective cover, both at intermediate and node points ? Following the CPA comparison, the next
question is given TA sensor coverage representing the nodes(action balloon) how can they be positioned on Nav,
again for max. sensor search capability ? Again can we rely on SA and Hull/Conf. to fill in the inter-node voids ?
Finaly in-game, only can the 'links' be time-warp assisted, without a fatal outcome. (as in my first outing !)
With carefull timing and ranging it works.

Now, in my fourth outing, I am learning some lessons, but I dont want to spoil with too much AAR.

Thinking of the character of this scenario, I must confess to a preference for this type of more open-ended
situation. Perhaps its my Harpoon experience but I prefer general objectives and the strategic
or tactical decisions to be left to me, the player.

If you're not afraid of some heavy duty math, you can write your own search manual.

Bare in mind, people have been interested in the mathematics of search since WWII. It's been used for more than just finding submarines. It's had implications for everything from crime scene investigation and finding missing children, to finding burried treasure, to search and rescue for the coastguard.

There's a book called, Search and Screening by Koopman (who basically invented search theory, and found it's application used to devastating effect in the Bay of Biscay during WWII) and another book called, Naval Operations Analysis by Wagner and friends, which basically covers a lot of the same stuff, but simplified. It also has some new stuff in it too. It won't tell you what the real people do, but it will teach you how to think in terms of how to make the most efficient use of your assets. Then you can experiment on your own, and see what works best for you. The problem solving is what wargaming is all about. All of these debates over realism are really academic. Who cares? I honestly don't think a lot of it really matters. So long as everything is correct in principle you'll have a reasonably realistic and fun game that you can learn a lot from.

Wargaming is all about the tactics. Sometimes I worry people obsess too much with the gizmos.

Yeah... missions that are too scripted can be boring to me too. I don't like to feel like I'm being lead by the nose to a pre-determined outcome. The whole point of a wargame is to put YOU in the drivers seat. Sink or swim, your decisions and good luck are what the outcome depends upon. It doesn't need to be complex. Even doing simple things can require a great deal of thought to do really well.

:D Agree re Tactics v Gizmos.

Holding up the white flag at this end - the broadside of book tips threatens to sink me.
Baulked at 100 dollars for Stefanick - maybe I can get an out-of-town sub. to your library. ;)

'' I don't like to feel like I'm being lead by the nose to a pre-determined outcome.'' My sentiments entirely -
seems more a display of the designers 'engineering' ability. But for the player it's what I call 'running on rails'

The sub Captain is the last of the breed of potential bucaneers, psychologicaly inclined to resist
the increasing shackles of group co-ordination. As a diver I prefer the free-ranging lone-wolf role.

PS. I suppose the department dont provide books on a 'Lend-lease' basis do they ? :lol:

Heh, keep an eye out for it in used bookstores or online. I'm sure you'll be able to find a copy at a reasonable price eventually. The world won't end if you don't read it. I just toss these things out there because everyone seems to want to know how real warship captains and other military planners think. Believe it or not, most of that sort of stuff is unclassified and available to the public. The highly specific technical details are usually where one can get in trouble.

Stefanick has been out of print for a while now. The other two are also hard to find, but the Military Operations Research Society (MORS) keeps Koopman in print, and Wagner is a text book at the Naval Academy. That's on Amazon.com both are not friendly reading if you don't have a pretty good background in mathematics. It won't necessarily be what the captain of a warship is thinking, but the results of books like that are the starting point for experimentation and the development of actual tactics. They won't tell you what anyone actually does, but they will allow you to make some educated guesses sometimes.

That's actually not very true. Submarines, like any other warship, these days, act in coordination with other assets. They are a lot less independent than they're frequently romanticized as. HOW they coordinate them with other assets has some unique challenges, but over all, submarines are as much a part of the team as much as FFGs, DDGs, CGs, CVNs, LHDs, etc...

What about the USS Barb's Formosa Strait patrol? Or USS Tang at Wake Is.? Or Tyrian P-3 01 and SSN-754 at the Battle of Kingston. :ping:

:D I did say ''potential bucaneers'' but no more so than your average quarter back. ;)

Cant be bothered to reload so hope the other barrel will do for TLAM - ''psychologicaly inclined to resist !!''
'' As a diver I prefer the free-ranging lone-wolf role. ''

From a little intense Harpooning guys I am well aware of the strategic coordination of modern
submarine warfare. One must contrast this with personal preferences within gameplay. ;)

I dont mind what role i do a team role is better because we can communicate possible targets and litteraly confuse the enamy.

However i do like doing a lone wolf role, it suites me either way.