Given the fact that Jamie (DW producer) told me that our database and doctrine set is a substantial improvement over stock DW in terms of bringing the civilian version more in line with the contract (military) version, such comments as those listed above are simply amusing for people familiar with the software.

Also, the fact that SCS has taken numerous pieces of our work and applied them to DW (sonobuoy depths, MH60 dipping sonar, non-exploding on CM torpedoes, etc) is confirmation that I am heading the in right direction.

Say what you want, LWAMI is a proven commodity and well beyond the reach of people who don't get it, and don't want to.

Play the game the way you want, and have fun, but don't mislead yourself into thinking you are doing one thing when you are really doing another.

Cheers,
David

So you really think that the "65 cm" acoustic homing wireguided torpedo is real, and the 65-76 wakehomer is made up?

You really think that a DB that hasn't been updated since Fleet Command is up-to-date?

You really think that having helo's that don't dip, and aircraft that don't prosecute and engage is more balanced?

You really think that ASROCs and SUBROCs overshooting their targets by several miles is more realistic? And that having surface ships that can never hit their targets because if that is more balanced?

You really think that the AEGIS system won't engage even high-altitude missiles until they're within 10 miles?

You really think that the STIR and CAS radars have the capability to illuminate targets through the horizon?

You really think that SLMM's and mobile mines are supposed to dissapear after deploying instead of staying in place until a ship passes over and then exploding?

You really think that launching a missile from a submarine doesn't produce an assload of noise?

You really think that the RAM SAM is incapable of hitting ASMs?

You really think that the antiquated rear-aspect SA-7 is 100% effective against low flying aircraft?

You really think that a Kilo at flank is quieter than a Seawolf at rest?

You reallly think that the TB-23 is not deployed on board the 688I?

I can go on forever...
So, once again, if you think you have better information, by all means share it. But considering all the stuff in the stock DB I've poked at above, SCS's stock database is entitled to NO DEFERENCE AT ALL. Assuming that the stock database is right and that all other sources are wrong, without any critical thought about what is more plausible is, well...thoughtless.

Don't forget about the active sonar fixes you made back around 1.01 that SCS followed up on in 1.03.

DW patch 1.4
 

<S>


With the new 1.4 patch for DW there are some problems with the new setting with the patch.
All thou there have been some good fix’s with the patch. The fact is that some changes have made it very unfair.
The new (DW.INI) setting for one, and the ranges of torps for the SW another.
1st There is no way to know what the host has set the decoys to work at.
This does not allow all games to be played the same as others are.
So in some games a player may get kills easier than another player in another game.
Like some decoys in one game being set to 50%, and another 100%. Or 0% to 50%.
This would be unfair to all players trying to get kills and points.
We have a standard set of options to make it the same for all and fair for all.
This new (DW.INI) setting does not allow this to be done.
Next is the fact that now SW torps only go out to 20nmi.
This allows an akula player to stay at 21nmi away and kill the SW player at will.
The SW player would not be able to hit the akula at that range.
This along with the new decoy setting gives the akula player a great advantage vs. the SW player.
They could also out run the SW torp if they were like 12.5nmi away.
This means all subs would need to be set to inside 12.5nmi from each other.
With all of this now All SSN maps would be out of date, and new maps would have to be made.
Along with not being able to, put to many platforms in a map to keep all platforms together.
I can not believe sonalysts would put out a patch that could be used by the host to cheat others.
The new decoy ini setting allow the host to do this.
Along with the new SW torp ranges would give the akula a great advantage over SW players.
One thing I am sick of is these it’s more real players or more realistic.
The same players calling the moon was too big and too many star’s is not realistic from there basement in the city LOL.
Never having seen the Moon as big as it can be seen and as many star’s that you be able to see in the open sea.
The same players that say to make it more fair, is to download the lwami mod to make it fair! LOL!
The fact’s are the more real you try to make a game the less fair it becomes!
The fact an akula would need to be less than 12.5 nmi away from a SW before the SW could kill the akula!
Or the Akula could just run away is a fact in this new 1.4 and with that so unfair to even play.
Why were only the SW torps ranges changed and not the fact you should be able to hear a rocket being fired from an Akula?
This new patch was put out to give the akula host and player an advantage over any SW player and even a cheat to do it with!
With the new decoy setting! LOL!
The point is the 1.4 is unfair and know longer fun or fair for SW players.
The point is the game was fun before and fair. If they would of, just did the fixes and not add the decoys ini setting and the new SW torp ranges.
The patch would have been great! The player here are the same player that posted before about the subs not moving real and made them look like toy subs in a bath tube with the 1.3 and made the akula cut its array.
I have sent two E-mail to sonalysts about this with out any reply now for a week and a masg to Jamie with know reply yet!
Only to find out he’s no longer with them! LOL!
Players will play what they like as they did with the mods!
I don't think you will find many SW players using this patch!
Why you may not find some player in game spy is because they like to play coop games vs. (AI’s).
You will only find players that enjoy a game that is fair and fun to be played vs. another player here in game spy.
The plm posting in the forums is you have a few that post the truth and for everyone you have another 10 that say that is not true.
Players you see that post the most are the one’s that need everyone to think they know more than all other’s.
This could be so fair from the truth it’s not even funny! These players think they know everything and know very little!
The only things they know, is what is best for them to be able to win more easy
If you don't think this is true do the test. Have another player get in the Akula and SW with show truth on get 12.5nmi away and fire.
Have the akula just run away. I am also sick of player saying the SW array is so much better than the akula’s. I have played many very good players in both. In most all case’s both pick each other up at the same time. Some times it depends on the sea state or layer type. On who picks who up 1st?
If the SW has a better array than the akula it is so small it is point less to even talk about!
The point that this game allows players to make and pick maps that makes it very hard to pick up players from more than 12.5nmi away or even less.
With the sea state, bottom type, weather and more. There was know big call to change the decoys or the SW trop ranges.
1st players that are good player know this to be an unfair advantage to the akula’s and the ini setting nothing more than away for a host to be able to cheat! With all players having to take his word on what he has them set too, and No way to check!
Why would anyone need to download a mod to make it fairer unless the patch made it unfair to start?
I don't post here because what is said here most of the time is just bull! And for ever good post you have another 10 players posting more bull!
So for all you player that was to jump all over this post have to it! I will not be replying to it!
This is only a post to let others read and do the test for them self’s.
Some will stay with the 1.3 some will still play the 1.4 and some will play both!
We here at the Silent Sharks Navy will only use the 1.3 to keep a standard game play and to be fair for all players.

<S>
ADM Sfduke NCO SSN

Thanks for the diplomatic reply.

Everyone here needs to understand that when I talk about DW, I talk solely about MODDED DW, which is, of course, my (totally biased) preference.

In the context of Modded DW, the DW 1.04 patch is *everything* we could have hoped for, mostly because the issues that it raises for stock players are simply non-issues in modded DW.

For those playing non-modded DW in particular settings such as fleets, I understand why 1.04 would cause such consternation because of the way it shifts the balance of the game, perhaps quite unexpectedly for some players.

In this light, I think it's best for us to be clear when we discuss these things, and to stay positive.

Although, to be fair, don't be surprised when you come to SubSim and jump ugly with SubSim members about SubSim projects! One of the features of the DW community has been malevolent fractionalization, and everyone has their own way to play and of course everyone's way is the best and the right way.

You all can read in the first few lines of my readme why I'm doing this, to make DW more the way I want it to be. I've never hid that fact, so don't be surprised when it reflects OUR biases and opinions.

That's the great thing about DWedit... don't like something? Change it in the database and tell the fleet this is what to use now. :)

So my advice to you in the SSN, is to do some research into a few things that can help balance the game for your players, and then make a Database for you fleet, and then update to 1.04 and use those. Just some advice, let me know if you want some specific suggestions about what you can do to address the issue as I've got some ideas.

Cheers,
David

I ususally don't like to repeat myself, but this is worth saying a second time.

The Akula-II could run away from an ADCAP from "12.5nm" in DW 1.03. In fact, it can run away from an ADCAP fired as close as 9.82 nm. And I can prove it:

The ADCAP runs 27nm at 55kts. That gives you a runtime of 29.45 minutes.
In 29.45 minutes, an Akula-II can run 17.18nm at its top speed of 35kts. So, to prevent the Akula from being able to run away, you need him to be at least 17.18nm from the maximum range of the ADCAP: 27nm-17.18nm= 9.82nm.

So no-escape range in 1.03 is 9.82nm.
In 1.04, it's 7.74nm. (same method, different runtime)

The sky isn't exactly falling.

And it applies to ALL torpedoes, not just the ADCAP. I've already gotten away from some air-dropped torps that would have killed me for sure in 1.03...but in 1.04 they didn't have the legs to catch up.

I'm really flabbergasted at what I'm reading here. I'm still trying to figure out why things are changed except for the obvious one being the surfaced moving sub stability being erratic in v1.03. V1.04 should have really fixed that problem alone.

The logic that ADM Sfduke NCO-SSN presented is quite plausable. The Modders have their own opinion but hey, modding stuff is really for personal preference isn't it? Surely the changes made aren't based on real life accurate data retrieved from source documents that no doubt wouldn't be available anyway? Or am I barking up the wrong tree here!!:hmm:

Absolutely. No one would do something for free that they didn't like. ;)

I can guarantee you that LWAMI is significantly more 1) bug free, and 2) accurate to real-world data than the stock database.

There are many many examples of this, some of which Molon Labe listed above.

Another one I can add: do you really believe that all torpedoes have the exact same seeker parameters? or do you think the ADCAP has greater seeker capability than say a torpedoes manufactured in the 1970's or lightweight torpedoes?

Well, in the stock game, all torpedoes use the exact same seeker parameters... which was reason alone back in 2005 for many old school SCX players to refuse to play DW until some kind of mod fixed the issue, not to mention the fantasy 65cm and 53cm torpedoes and the absence of the TB-23.

Cheers,
David

1.04 made torpedo ranges variable with torpedo speed because that's the way torpedoes work in real life. When DW first came out, the fact that they had constant range was among the first major gripes. They actually tried to fix it in a previous patch but ended up screwing it up worse than it had been! 1.04 is the first version of DW that models the relationship between torpedo speed and range in a plausible fashion.

1.04 also allows the player to determine whether or not (or how often) torpedoes explode on decoys and whether or not (or how often) weapons home on dead platforms. Prior to 1.04, CMs always exploded on decoys and never home on dead platforms. In chosing for it to work this way, SCS was trading realism for playability--they wanted to make the game easier for new players so that they could reach a larger audience (you know, all that griping about how "steep" the learning curve is and such). Of course, the hardcore crowd was not pleased. The community was pretty much evenly divided on whether or not this should be changed back to how it was in Sub Command (not exploding, and homing), so SCS compromised with both camps and gave us the power to decide how we'd prefer to play.

I hope that answers the "why" part.

Duke is talking about 1.04 (specifically, that torpedo range varies with speed and that the host has the option of setting torps to explode on decoys and/or home on dead platforms). He briefly mentions mods, but said nothing substantial about them.

The role of modders in all this is that the changes in balance caused by the fact that torpedo ranges are now variable, can be and are addressed by LW/Ami.

You know, I thought of that one right after I left to read a case, and I thought about editing the post... but I didn't. You got me again! :x

Thanks for the great responses. Can you clarify this for me:

1. Who determines what the correct speed/range settings should be considering that environmental factors (even though not accurately modelled) play a great deal in the efficiency of I suppose any weapon for that matter.

2. Since when should a player have control of whether a torpedo explodes on CMs or dead platforms? To me that's not realism at all :hmm: Now if that was a variable that was randomly controlled when a game was lauched, that would make it perhaps more realistic because of the uncertainty could occur.

Sorry about the rand but if realism is the issue here then what ever is modded, changed, added or varied for that matter is just for the benefit of that person who does the changes as what he or she perceives to be realistic. That doesn't mean that everyone is of that same opinion.

Can anyone tell me what realism is within a simulated environment?

At the core of Dangerous Waters is a military grade simulation tool that responds (for the most part) intelligently to a wide variety of inputs and manipulation.

The whole point of DW is that it is DESIGNED to be manipulated in all manner of ways.

The "game" you purchased is merely one set of files that barely breaks the surface of unlocking the capability of the core engine.

People become focused on particular numbers and data, but when values are put into the simulation, they become meaningless in any absolute sense. What's much more important is how the simulation acts as a whole when all the values are considered together, from the perspective of their performance in the simulation.

Cheers,
David

Well, for the time being, SCS does. If you're asking for a critique of what they've done, then it depends just how deep you want to go. The relationship now accounts for both the efficiency of the propellant and the efficiency of the propeller. That's more accurate than we were even asking for, since I don't think the community as a whole even had prop efficiency in mind. As for knowing the actual coefficients...we pretty much have to rely on what SCS gives us up until the point that publicly available information contradicts it. So it might be Jane's, FAS, or GlobalSecurity, etc. that ultimately provide the data from which the correct relationship is determined.

As for environmental factors, the LW/Ami 4 project involved ranges that are variable for depth for chemical-fueled torpedoes, as the thrust they generate depends on the pressure differential between the fuel and the outside. Smart money says this added layer of complexity will work its way into a mod for 1.04 at some point in the future.

I think you might have misunderstood me. The player doesn't get to choose as he's being shot at. It's a game setting controlled by the host. All players in that game session are playing by the same "rules."

Part of the CM debate was actually about whether or not people thought it was realistic...but so little is known about the technology that there is no authoritative answer available to the public. It makes sense to leave it up to the players since no one is going to win the argument unless something gets declassified. Instead of picking someone to win and someone to lose, SCS let everyone win. That's commendable.

Thanks for the clarification. I don't believe I misunderstood though, unless the host wasn't a player and didn't reveal the settings. That's why the game should be randomly generating variables itself. This would solve many misconceptions to what's fair or not.

Ah!! but not everyone is a winner by any means. Irrespective of what's been provided whether it being stock or a modded version, it's still human intuition and skill through learning that decides the outcome at the end of the day :yep:

I meant the fight about whether the CM's explode or not, etc., not the outcome of a battle.;)

Ah!! must have mis-read that sentence :hmm:

Do I detect a certain amount of paranoia from Silent Sharks Navy people?

For the love of god, if you are so worried about the cm exploding or not, have an agreement with the host to set it to 50% or whatever before you start.

I would have thought that as a subsim group you'd have enough trust in your fellow members to have faith they will stick to the agreement.

Oh and about modding stuff to make it realistic isn't fair, well life isn't fair, war whether virtual or real isn't fair. If you want fair go any play some console shooter or something. Half the fun of MP in DW with the mod is that you have to work to make your kill. In many ways I'd say the Seawolf is still the sub to beat and is no easier for an Akula driver now or before.

So be a man and start playing the sim as it should be or find your dummy you spat out and go back to the sand pit.

Here, Here, Xabba! :up:

We must understand if some people want to play DW like arcade,we must respect their belief... :lol:

'sand pit' :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

and….

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

This is just more of the same stuff they (non SSN) have been saying at G.S. for the longest time.

It’s not your normal outfit ladies and gentlemen.. everyone knows that…