Based on my (somewhat limited) experience with subs in CMANO, my thoughts:
1. CMANO is not designed for that level of control of individual platforms. Decoys of all kinds (planes, ships, ground units) are used only by the AI. Although you can have scenarios that only include one unit, like a sub, the game is really designed around controlling multiple units where having to manually deploy countermeasures would be impracticable.
2. I think I have seen this bug/inaccuracy pointed out before, but I don't remember the response.
3. I have read conflicting reports of whether knuckles are really effective/accurate. They are probably not as much of a tactic as Tom Clancy would have us believe. That being said, given the level of feedback that the game gives you, it is difficult to say whether they are included or not. They could be abstracted or the developers could have considered them below the minimum level of effectiveness to be included in the game.
4. While you certainly can control the depth of the sub to the foot in CMANO, the game is really intended to abstract a lot of these things to lower the amount of micromanagement required. In general, the game is intended to to have you pick the general tactical environment for the sub (periscope depth, above the layer, in the layer, below the layer, DSC, etc.) and let the game figure out what the exact depth should be based on local conditions, i.e. the game wouldn't let the sub get to a depth where the TA would drag on the bottom.
I think the big thing you are experiencing is that CMANO is not intended to be anything like DW or SubCommand. The level of control and abstraction are completely different and don't really compare well. CMANO generally wants you to set goals for a platform and leave the details to the AI, which is programmed to avoid making mistakes like going too fast with the scope up or dragging the TA.
From the CMANO FAQ:
How does the simulator compare to earlier games like Dangerous Waters and the like?
Dangerous Waters, Sub Command etc. are more tactical, “push button” simulations so the actual actions of driving a platform are certainly more detailed (go to sonar station, see water fall display on sonar, turn wheel, open/close torpedo tubes etc. etc.). Command assumes that the AI crew handles many of the housekeeping tasks that are explicitly modeled in DW (for example, resolving the bearing ambiguity of passive sonar, performing TMA etc.) so you can focus on the tactical picture, much like in Microprose’s classic “Red Storm Rising”. Command’s scope is from that of a grand tactical/operational commander. So you manage forces and many of the tactical functions will be handled by the AI although you can take manual control and do things like plot courses, set speeds/depths and fire weapons if you want to. This higher-level modeling allows Command to scale to much greater theaters and unit numbers than what is practical in “study” sims. In terms of the physics, sensors & weapons simulation Command holds its own against such detailed sims with the probable exception of some sonar details (e.g. no explicit DEMON mode, no manual tweaking of sonobuoy depth etc.).
Hope that helps,
Mike
|