Yeah, Mk37 should have 149kg warhead, not 225, but that's easily fixable. Overall looking at the numbers the new warhead sizes are closer to real ones.

MK48 v1.00 550, b1.01 295
MK37 v1.00 225, b1.01 225

something disconnects here, why MK48 ~halved and MK37 same (along with many others unchanged between 1.00 and 1.01)?

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_PostWWII.php

Mk37 real: 150kg HBX -> 225 kg TNT equivalent (assuming HBX = 1.5 TNT)
Mk48 real: 292.5 kg PBXN-103 -> 544 kg TNT equivalent as noted

Since they posted the warhead weight being TNT weight, the 1.00 numbers should be closer RL values. i think they are changed for more interesting gameplay reasons.
For how many torps it takes to sink a ship, personally i think the 1.00 warheads is spot on. destroyers and attack subs, 1 hit is enough. shoot at the SSG/BNs, or Kirov or Kiev, it takes anywhere from 2-4. big ships are just rarely encountered due to the in-game battles setup more against small ships.
More importantly, the weak warheads makes campaign mode.. will so far a bit ridiculous. It is doable, but a lot harder. like one battle later it's return port to re-arm for 3 dayz. - Maybe also double the loadout capacity of player subs, then halve the reload in-port time of weapons. Anyway thankfully this is all moddable lol.

I hope that they boos weapons back, double loadout would be just stupid move to too arcade style game.

I hope that this is not sing of end, i mean that many games are ruined when devs lose their orginal "red line" or goal. :oops:


-

Well, looks like you're right. Too bad there's no info about what type of explosive the Soviets used in their torpedoes. Cause I doubt it was TNT.

In that case we'd have to set US warheads to their 1.0 values and use some sort of multiplier for Soviet ones. Unless someone will provide info on the type of explosive used in their torps.

I think they got changed back because people complained about one hit killing cruisers with Mk48s = too easy.

Perhaps make surface ships more durable in general? Or add a variable, like "hull strength" to ships (from what I tested it seems to be based on ship displacement), so that it's possible to tweak it for individual vessels.

I'm not an expert here but I do think that surface ships should be harder to kill that subs.

Ships should use decoys, towed etc.. but yes , 1-2 direct hits should make ships go down (least cruisers) and 1 direct hit should sink sub about 98% time. But i hope that dev's will tune this more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm by no means an expert in naval architecture, torpedo design, or the physics of underwater explosions.

I thought that one of the major advantages of the post WW2 US torpedo design with the Mk48 was that it would automatically attempt to detonate under the keel of a vessel, versus going for an impact against the hull. As we know from WW2, even a single well placed torpedo had a decent chance of doing non-survivable damage to pretty much anything smaller then a cruiser. That was also to ships built to a very sturdy design standard, that was moved away from by most of the worlds military's over the years. The MK48 has a warhead that is slightly more powerful then MK14 mod 3 torpedo of WW2 (approximately 1200 lb TNT equivalent to 1000 lb TNT equivalent). So I think the effectiveness of a MK48 detonating under a ships keel or on contact should be equivalent roughly to what was seen in WW2 at a minimum.

One of the major issues in CW is that a ship is either in fighting trim (I'm have no clue if they are degraded when damaged, but they are certainly not out of the fight) or they are sinking. I have yet to see a propulsion casualty, a ship break off and run after being torpedoed etc. There also isn't the slow death of a ship, where you spend 30 mins to a couple of hours waiting for it to slow down and slowly sink that historically was pretty common. If a ship sustains enough damage, it simply sinks right then and there.

I think the ideal answer would be to have a mechanism for the degradation of the ship when damaged, and it's sinking be based on the nature of damage etc (if only wishes were fishes.....). However based on the current binary (alive, firing, and driving or sunk) conditions of ships, I think it works out. Would a cruiser be headed to the bottom within 30 seconds after impact by a single torpedo that detonates near the bow? Probably not, but it might be after 3-4 hours. As a player I'd love to have the longer sinking time as it keeps me guessing if it's still in the fight, but the end result is still a sunk ship.

TLDR: With the current surface ship damage modeling, the 1.0 torpedo damage levels provide the correct result. However due to the limitations of the game, the graphical representation appears to be off.

-Jenrick

I agree on that one. Subs have damage modelling and flooding, surface ships should have those things as well.
Then, unless the ship gets destroyed on impact the explosion would damage the hull and create flooding, just like in subs and the ship would be registered as sunk only after its hull passes below water. Such ships would not be firing, cause all available hands would be busy trying to keep it afloat or preparing lifeboats.

Similar thing could be applied to subs (playable ones included) only that they would be marked as sunk after they hit the ground with no way of going up or reaching crush depth.

But, as you said, so far 1.0 values are our best option.

I have had ships break contact. If I attack a landing force, I've had the escorts come after me while the LSTs disengage. Also, I've hit a Kirov with one torpedo to have it disengage while the escorts come after me.

I've also experienced ships being "killed" but staying afloat and burning for the remainder of the match.

I've considered addressing the warhead values in my mod as well. Until last night. I shot at a krivak and Grisha (I think), and one of the boats took 2 torps. The first one I shot took damage, and proceeded to run away for about 3-5 minutes, before sinking. The second was busy digging out when I put torp #2 up his ass.
I guess my point is that we should give the devs time to sort things out themselves as well. There will always be time to clean things up when they've decided to retire.

I wasn't referring to craft fleeing combat, that I have seen. I hand't seen a combatant flee after being damaged, interesting. I put 2 fish into the Kirov, and it just came barreling in (2 which 2 more fish solved that issue).

On the burning ship, was it marked as a kill on the tac map? Also were you close enough for it to have launched weapons? I'm curious about what all is modeled now.

-Jenrick

Also, consider that cavitation will reduce the output thrust of any propeller. A spin speed adequate to run 25kts on the surface will (if cavitating) generate a higher speed at non-cavitation depth. There are tons of variables and factors to consider here. Being a Unity developer myself, and having looked at the source for this game, I can assure you that the poor programmer(s) is already dealing with a mind-crushing amount of variables and functions.
Give them some more time to fine tune.

It was marked as a kill and yes I was close enough. I've been told by Julhelm that there is a chance for a surface ship to not sink and to stay (burning) on the surface.

Regarding the Sonobuoys and other realism issues, the thing is that there are so many shortcuts and oversimplifications in the physics engine of this game that the mere fact of inputing real data won't necessarily give the expected real results.

In this specific case of a dipping sonar being stronger than a sonobuoy, the dipping sonar is also affected strongly by a perpendicular radiated noise coming from the host platform, the helicopter, while the sonobuoy enjoys a lower ambient noise and interference. Now, is the helicopter noise simulated? Is any noise even properly simulated*?!

http://i.imgur.com/JwZsCfn.jpg

Driving a submarine in 3d as you would in a Flight sim is really enjoyable, but there's just not too much of subsim in this game yet. I really hope that the devs will find ways to include old hardcore subsimmers in their public, cause, for me, there's really not much in there. For me the sole fact that soviet ssns start any scenario already pinging is already a show stopper.

I agree, AI subs should not ping least if they are not allready detected or under attack.

Sub vs Sub should be 99% passive hide and seek !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can I give you a hug?

Because you spoke with my Heart on your tongue, really.
Let me give you a hug.

Where are you going.
Stop.
STOP!

HUG ME! :(

I'm not sure how your playing but more often than not soviet SSNs don't ping me until I'm ether close and they detect launch transients or they ping when the mk48 is coming in for the kill.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll actually disagree. Having played DW, SC and 688 before moving to this, I find myself actually being much more of a submariner and concentrating much harder with this game than in the sims. I am actually sneaking around, desperately checking my counterdetection margin and clearing datum trying to dodge those Super-Silexes.

Though nominally the first three are sims, I actually play them in a much more "gamey" fashion. I would use flank speed a lot, run at flank speed 5 feet above the ocean floor, use active just because I'm impatient for the TMA, compensate for bad solutions by "flying" my torpedoes because a lot of the time the sim lets you get away with this stuff. Even if they flip a torpedo at you, they are relatively easy to dodge. The sim just doesn't punish you very hard. Now I am being punished for the smallest indiscretions.

The Soviet SSNs don't often ping in my experience at the start, though they do ping in mid-combat. Personally, I interpret this as them having gotten a whiff of me and immediately deciding to sanitize the closest 10000 or so yards to them. Anyway, the truth is that you generally have a counterdetection advantage, so if you don't let them ping you are basically asking them to be lambs versus your new, superior Los Angeles class sub.

Please allow me to vent a second:

The steam forums are full of people whining and crying that it doesn't feel like a subsim because of the controls. Now I come here and see that true subsim fans are trying to better the game with productive conversation, which is great.

If you feel the game is broken, unrealistic, etc that is wonderful, but why would you try to derail a thread that is doing it's best to move forward and make the game better?

You seriously think a couple of developers can create a sonar simulation so accurate that it's simulates the blade-wash off a hovering ASW helicopter?

If you feel it's silly because it doesn't have a multi-million dollar sonar simulation then relax, and wait another decade and hopefully somebody will create that simulator for you. Maybe the USN will sell you it's old software by then.

Now I hope this thread goes back to those who I'm sure will make the game even more enjoyable for the community wanting a bit more realism.