What to You does not suffice in game?
 

That You have not enough in game DW - new controlled units, other weapons loadout for existing units, Your expectations for new interest to this game...


Or You are overcome by the "bugs". Give here all posts to the item of information. But I do not speak that this thread will be as FAQ.
It is simple that we should know about our disappointment In the current condition of game ( That it is not pleasant to us and we do not want it to have)

I am especially addressed to the veterans (Old Guardia) HK\688-SC-DW...

Also it not the message of the agent-provocateur :lol:

These questions should be set for our community by other people, but time they are silent :x , I think that we can them set.

:sunny:

This thread could easily turn into a flame match, or be interpreted as bitching about Sonalysts - none of which would be fair.

But at the same time, this is a fair question

I adored 688i Hunter Killer, the game very nearly cost me my School Leaving certificate. I remember nostalgically one time I managed to get off a decoy at the last moment. Torpedo detonated leaving my propulsion down and flooding in the torpedo room. Through careful nursing of the emergency blow ballest and flooding of the ballest tanks, I managed to hover in shallow water long enough for propulsion to be restored so I could slip out of the combat zone.

Ah the days.

Anyway, back to your point. Whilst 688i has dated somewhat, it has some features in it which were overlooked in future versions. With the replay, for example, you got a written log of events in the game you had played which could be copied and pasted into word. This log basically informed you whether you had been detected by a platform, what actions platforms took at what time. Basicly, you could examine and analyse your performance over the course of a game.

Then Sub Command. For one I could never keep the game from crashing. But I played it enough to get a feel for it. Having various platforms was fantastic fun. In 688i, Multiplayer matches were affectionally known as "Training Exercises". The idea of a playable Akula was fantastic fun Evolutionarily though, it was more derrived from Fleet Command then 688i HK, and I always felt the game put you in the navigation screen for far longer then you should.

Then DW. Where can I start, playable SSK's - how did I cope without them. The diversity of platforms mean that we can have multiplayer matches in a way that the "I want Destroyer Command II" people on the SHIII forum can only dream of. But whilst I adore the game, a few things do frustrate me.

The database for one. I'm British, which means that when I'm creating my own missions, I tend to focus on postcolonial conflict senarios, or other sitatuations where it would be stretching the realms of reality to have a US / Russian Carrier group siting off the coast. Yet the database for the UK and France is seriously out of date. Intrepid and Fearless were out of commision half a decade ago. It was an anacranism to see them in Fleet Command, let alone DW. Yet, someone has kept them in the database and deleted the Type 22 Frigates, which often operate as UK Taskforce Flagships when a Carrier is not around. I'm sure other people can offer similar examples from their respective countries.

On Playables, I won't bother to argue the case for a playable Traflagar, Sonalysts are probably sick of hearing that one by now. But a diversity of platforms from the European Powers, Canada, Australlia and beyond is surely slowly becoming a must.

Finally Graphics. I have no problem with the fact that the graphics engine has not been the first priority of the developers. Indeed, I would be disturbed if they sacrificed the level of detail that has been put into the game simply to animate people on the decks of merchants. However, I think that DW is the last outing for the Fleet Command graphics engine.

I'm actually pretty content with the game. I have a list of stuff that makes me grumpy, but I'm not sure that there's much to be done about most of it. A lot of my gripes have to do with aircraft. I have some slight issues with the way it represents sound speed profiles. I thought there were some glaring omissions of platforms in the database. There's no flight II Arleigh Burkes, for example. There's also no American LPDs. I'd really like to see an LPD-17 in there. All in all, though, my gripes are pretty minimal.

As long as the scenarios are good, the game is fun and you can learn an impressive amount from it.

I've got a bunch of gripes, but I don't see any constructive purpose to a thread asking for a laundry list of them. It's one thing for complaints to come up when they're relevant to another issue being discussed, but to solicit them for their own sake? :down:

I'ld still like to see the noise modeling taken up a notch. A purely linear sound vs speed relationship could be upgraded to the next level with a nonlinear one (stepwise)

Well, honestly, I had been kind of hoping they'd update the old interfaces a bit. The FFG-7 in particular introduced many things to the sonar interfaces. It is not only more realistic, but provides a lot more options. I find it disappointing that updates were not done to the Akula/688/SW and maybe the Kilo to get it to match.

The DB is basically (polite words fail to describe it). Weapon effectiveness is all over the place. All the planes basically have one radar SL. All missiles have one radar SL. The radars are grouped into several very broad categories and then each category has the exact same values... basically it feels like a tack-on job that was done 6 hours (12 would be too generous) before the game had to go out the door.

Sorry, but that's the way it is. Admittedly, you don't feel it so bad - what effort was made was concentrated in the "important" areas like sound SL so it doesn't immediately feel absurd. However...

The difference between professional and amateur produced "girl games" is that in the professional game, the boys should at least look human, while in amateur produced games they may be drawn as stick figures (seeing few really care about them anyway) and of course the girls aren't expected to reach the same quality as pro (though the good ones overlap with at least the lower-middling of professional IMO). The DW database is analogous to the amateur game... but this is a professional production, no?

Which is a shame, because the entire series of games have some of the best sonar models available at their time. But a good model doesn't produce good results without good assumptions, and all the assumptions are from the database.

Still, the DB is not my major gripe. At least it is repairable by our own hands.

Like anyone else I want more platforms, but we all knew what we were gonna get there...

End of gripe list here...

Well, missing the old 688 commodore screaming at you took some of the fun, as well as it being a "professional created campaign". The continuity in weapons loadout was also nice.

Also, it was nice that the active sonar WORKED in 688. You can get nice clear blips out to at least 20000! Now, I have to squint at the screen with any platform. And w/ the Akula unless I go change the Sensititivity to about -15 I might as well never use it, which I doubt is right.

My biggest gripe about Dw ?

Good missions which take into account the 3d-dimensional battlespace are hard to come by.

Unfortunately good mission designers are rare as diamonds. :ping:

The thing is, since DW is a tactical simulation, my experience has been that these sorts of massive scenarios with air, land and sea forces all doing things simultaneously frequently don't turn out to play well or be very realistic. That sort of language applies more to operational level simulations like Harpoon than to tactical sims.

I'm happy with the sim. I have several new modesl but am waiting for Luft to take his dbase to the next level and pursuade him to add them.

Also I have half and idea why this thread was started in the first place but hopefully patch 1.04 will be out soon.

LPD-17 I could make one. Type 93, well if I had pics I could make one too. Thing is looks like the Chinese are going to go straight to the Type 95.

So far the only thing they've shown of the type 093 is the sail.

The Chinese are in spiral development. That means they build a few of a class, take what they've learned, and then build a new class based on the lessons they learned from constructing and experimenting with the previous ship. I wouldn't expect them to build a whole lot of any single ship or submarine class, the way they knocked off Romeos for so long. They're trying to learn as much as they can so they can modernize their fleet.

LPD-17 would be nice, or even n LPD-4, SOMETHING. I mean, geez.. if we put a bunch of US Marines on a British LPD, we'd have a mutiny on our hands when they got back to the US ships because they'd have to switch back from good beer to coolaid. We can't have that. :D

You got any pics of even the Type 093 Sail?

Yes. Please post the pic. I'm curious as to how they designed the sail. :yep:

I got this off a Chinese web site:

The Shang/Type 093 entry has a picture of the sail.

http://mil.jschina.com.cn/huitong/han_xia_kilo_song.htm