Why are people pushing so hard for something that is never going to happen.

You can add detectable masts to that catagory as well. ;)

It's much better to spend time worrying about things that are moddable or genuine bugs. :)

SCS has shown zero inclination to reverse decisions that were based on "gameplay" or "USNI Reference data", whereas Jamie takes very seriously and the SCS team works hard to resolve genuine bugs when they are reproducable.

There's one major difference between properly functioning replayviewer and detectable masts.

One issue is hit by every single person who plays the game, including gaming press who actually reviews the game. Another is one of these fairly obscure things that should be addressed but will not have big impact even if they are.

Btw, what "gameplay" factor influences the decision to omit genuine improvements to the replays in last ten years?

I was referring to the harping about harpoons and such. :yep:

Yes, the replay feature needs to be addressed.

Ummm... mind explaining which is which?

Replay problems hits only those who use them, which I suspect isn't quite everybody (I've been lax with them myself, but that may be partially because of the problems..)

As for detectable masts... that would affect most players, but how many would actually notice without being told?

(First thing they'd need to do, is make sure the "mast raising" is transmitted in other cases than same platform player. Perhaps making sure AI used masts properly. Then, they'd have to add a field in the masts database for how radar visible they are.)

I usually recommend keeping masts down when you're not actively using them, regardless of detectability, because that gives you the ability to emergency maneuver, without fear of breaking masts because you forgot them or they weren't lowered quick enough...

LW, I seem to remember you tried adding an extra emitting (counterdetectable) sensor to the masts? What did go wrong with that? Considering the CIWS radiation is only detectable (to a player, at least) at very short ranges, something similar must be possible for other emitters...

That was actually Amizaur, and I completely forgot about that...

I think the problem was that any sensory modality that was chosen provided instant detection of the mast as soon as it was raised... that or it didn't work at all. I maybe mixing up the results of this work with the results on work done to make missile transients automatically detected, as it was some time ago that this was done.

I think it's something to look into again, thanks for reminding me. :)

Yup. Because they're such a gigantic PITA, they get used a lot less than they should be. They'd be perfect for after-successful-mission gloating session or in the aftermath of 60 seconds of stark terror before death..

For the masts.. It's kinda like the sub accelerating too much. Some people felt it's the end of the world, but it really didn't affect the tactics you'd generally employ very much.

Should the masts be picked up by radar? Absolutely! Should they be difficult to pick up and only at shortish detection ranges? Absolutely!

So.. You shouldn't be able to monitor contacts on ESM/Visual with impunity, but with realistic detection ranges etc it shouldn't really change much.

Of course if you SEE helo on scope, you're probably screwed emitter distance inverse square -wise.