True.
But all the god damn time/in every battle/before/after detection?
Sorry but besides this being very hard to believe, it also sucks from a gameplay perspective.

Actually, from my experience it all depends on their current mission.
For example:

If they're hunting for you they will be pinging and I can understand why (I'll explain later).

On the other hand, if they're on escort mission (doesn't matter if it's a boomer they're escorting or a convoy) they'll stay silent until someone picks you up.
They also keep silent when patrolling ports.

Now, back to why I think their pinging is ok.
Imagine that you are a Soviet captain, and your task is to find a US attack sub. You know that it's stealthier and you know it has better passive sonar (the Soviets weren't stupid). So, if you stay quiet the only chance of detecting them first is if they make a mistake and run at high speed. On the other hand, if you'll use active sonar, sure, they'll find you first, but you also greatly negate the chance of them surprising you. Also, active sonar might give you that quick precise solution they might not have.

I'm saying that because I noticed while playing CW that it's much easier to get in the baffles of enemy who's staying quiet than one who's actively pinging. They also like to use tactic where one sub will use it's active sonar and another will creep behind.

Nippelspanner:

Let's just say that a soviet sub madly pinging away 50% of every hour is absolute 100% real world accurate (this is merely a thought exercise I'm not saying that is or is not accurate). Would you want CW to simulate that? If the answer is yes, then this becomes a questions of who has sources to prove what approach is correct.

If you do not want CW to simulate that, then what would you like it to do and why? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'm curious.

-Jenrick

Well, you can just read up on the USS Lapon trailing that Yankee for 47 days, and the Yankee kept pinging away happily with his active sonar, which helped the Lapon regain contact on several occasions.

For those who don't know, Captain Whitey Mack was tailing that Yankee for 47 days, and somehow during the patrol the information was leaked to the media, also reaching the Soviets who alerted the Yankee captain that he was being tailed by an american ssn. That should explain his pinging.

Hope you're not basing your AI on this occasion alone...:haha:

Exactly, as long as they were smart about it, using active sonar was a winning proposition for most soviet sub drivers. In exchange for giving up your position (which you're gambling is already known, or at least known to a certain degree by the Americans, don't forget that the Soviets for the most part had a very good idea of what SOSUS was even before Johnny Walker, all those cable-laying ships weren't going out in the mid-Atlantic just to catch some sun) you're going to gain (assuming they are in range) the location of the American sub which otherwise would be nearly impossible to get using passive.

One last thing that should not be forgotten is TMA. While it did get easier as sensor and computer quality improved TMA (i.e. using passive signal analysis to determine course and distance) was never easy even for American boats. While things did get better for the Russians starting around the Victor IIs, the Soviets were also almost always behind the curve in computer tech as well so in many cases they didn't have anything in the same ball-park as the Mk117 fire control system, which again meant that working out a firing solution based off of passive data was a very long shot at best, compared to what a single active ping could get you.

In the end, I'll always sign in with realism.

While I heard Russians went active more often, I just cannot possibly imagine they did so all the time. Especially submarines. It just defeats their whole purpose, we all know going active is but a huge flashlight in the dark.
On top, active sonar technology wasn't that great during that time either, so it's not like a magic "unveal all" button anyways - but it sure is a reliable way to let anyone with "ears" know you are on that exact bearing.
How is this an "advantage"?

No, sorry, don't buy it one bit.

IIRC according to what a dev in discord said, the "under the hood" simulation of this game (im assuming things like sonar and stuff) is much more realistic than the silent hunter series.


Can a dev confirm?

Sorry but that's like saying "we're proud to say our automobile can go faster than a bicycle!".

Even if CW would model everything sonar 100% true to life... so what?
The rest of the game is lacking, in many areas, and that's the problem.

Go play some "Fast Attack" from the nineties.
Probably the best (modern) subsim ever made in terms of authenticity/overall quality, with (near) perfect gameplay.
Julhelm said CW was "heavily inspired" by Fast Attack.
Honestly, I do not see that at all.
Not one bit. :-?

I hadn't played Fast Attack, so I can't compare, but you hadn't been very specific about your complaints (at least on this thread) other than the pinging thing, and I think it is invalid.

On the realism front, you argue that they shouldn't be pinging without some provocation. But in the meta of the game, you will almost always have provoked them. In the campaign map, the most common thing you are doing is hurtling through the water at a SoA of 26 knots (by default the Primary Mouse button is used). Presumably, you weren't actually doing a steady 26 knots - otherwise the scenario screen would start with "We have detected a torpedo in the water, bearing ...". You were doing a sprint-and-drift and in one of the drifts you managed to pick up the contact, but all that means is that you were even faster during your sprints.

Even your patrol speed (the second most common scenario) of 10 knots is likely composed of a series of sprints and drifts. Really, you did not provoke them? Even if you managed to set an ambush ... not only is that only the 3rd most common scenario, but if you thought this is a great ambush position, why can't the enemy be allowed that intelligence?

So in the very vast majority of scenarios, it is at least plausible the enemy suspects you are in the area and the decision to make the AI act like it is the optimal choice.

Fast Attack has near perfect gameplay if you're a hardcore sub nut passionate about the subject matter. If you're not, the interface is too cumbersome and the combat too abstract, and that's why it ultimately failed commercially. It's still better than any Sonalysts sim, but DW ultimately failed to perform as well which is why noone has touched nuclear subs in over a decade.

I would love to do Fast Attack w/ dynamic campaign and SH5-like 3D models, but a self-funded 2-man studio like ours just don't have the economic resources or the manpower to pull that off from scratch. We have to do the best with what we have. It's that simple.

So, what would your do if you were, say, a captain of a Soviet Victor I sub tasked with finding and killing an LA class submarine?

No. I did not say that.
I said I doubt the doctrine was to ping away all/most of the time. I didn't say anything else.

Assumptions how I play the game don't help here, especially if they are wrong.
Whenever possible, wich is most of the time due to rather good recon everywhere, I ambush them, which sets your speed to 5kts.
And no, I see no sign that the enemy detected me before or after pinging, so your assumption Ithat they ping because I was detected doesn't work out here.

Hope the US commander has a bad day, hope the odds are somehow in my favor?
I sure will not light a friggin emergency flare in the middle of the night hoping that I might coincidentally find something - while everything else dozens of miles away definitely now have found me.

I would use active sonar only if I know something is out there and is in range of my weapons.
What point does it make to shoot a Russian fish after some Los Angeles class sub that can easily evade/outrun it at distance while being able to shoot back 4 of the best torpedoes of that Era?

It's suicide.

What do you mean Sonalysts failed to perform, what are you talking about? We had more than 10 full sub squadrons in our Seawolves fleet back in the days. One could find multiplayer anytime of the day as he wished. Honestly, I don't recall any community as alive as Seawolves during her prime years... What sonalysts failed to do was to bring its simulator up to date, in line with new gaming technologies, but even then, 20 years after, under the hood its still far superior to CW. Even commercially, if that's your point, I doubt that there would even had been follow ups like Fleet Command, SC and DW if it wasnt for 688i HK's commercial sucess alone.

I wouldn't mind having a Fast Attack 2 sim without any fancy dynamic campaing. A moddable modern fast attack, with 3d interiors, proper physics and crew management with good map and scenario editor and I'd be once again a happy subsimmer for at least a another decade.