I agree with OP, and this is with latest (unmodded) version of the game.
Some comments I made on the games Steam community discussion in this thread:
https://steamcommunity.com/app/54121...0934258244701/
Quote:
I haven't played the game enough to critique it in earnest, and it is a wonderful game. But there are a few things about it, as a brand new player which rub me the wrong way . . . only one time compression value in the combat maps is one of those.
Long story short . . . I had a random encounter on my way to a mission and there were about three Soviet ships off the coast of Norway. Kited and killed a Foxtrot and the icons for a couple of trawlers were still lingering, though they were not "contacts." So I set off to bag those two. Probably 60k yards or more away to get to one of them, then back another long distance (probably 80 to 90k) in the opposite direction to the other one. With my LA running at 33 knots, and time compression on the minutes were just dragging by. I literally, got up, fixed my dogs dinner brought it to them, went to the bathroom, washed my hands, grabbed a coke, came back and I STILL had like 30,000 yards to go to get to the lingering trawler marker.
SH4 has like . . . I dunno 20 time compression settings and that was SO wonderful for that game.
I'm not crazy about the highly "episodic" nature of the game, a more sand-box campaign would tickle my fancy more.
If you guys never played Battle of Britain II: Wings of Victory, you should check it out. http://www.matrixgames.com/products/...ngs.of.Victory
Mainly just to see the neat way it integrated a strategic level game and a tactical combat game all into one. Maybe something to think about for Cold Waters II 
Another thing that annoys me: encounters generally seem to occur at VERY close range, and the capacity to shape how an engagement begins using the campaign map interface seems rather limited.
|
To which a user called "Clivman" said: "For your last point- Use "Close To" to determine the range of ship engagement. Submarine engagement will always occur at short range because that's when you can detect them."
And I said:
Quote:
"Submarine engagement will always occur at short range because that's when you can detect them."
That doesn't really make sense to me: The ships have a radar mast with 60,000 yd range, an ESM mast with effectively unlimited range, and depending on the scenario potentially myriad forms of supporting intelligence and detection assets which would ostensibly be available (satellites, aircraft, other ships, coastal positions). Visual detection obviously depends largely on atmospheric conditions, but could be as large as 10 or 12 nautical miles IIRC?
If I am crusing at 9 knots with my ESM mast up, while traversing on the campaign map, then ostensibly I should be able to detect enemies running active radar at 60,000+ yards.
With my active radar then ~60,000 yards . . .
Its like the game assumes the skipper is incompetent on the campaign map and is cruising either too fast to use sensors or is unable/unwilling to make use of his sensors while en route. Not to mention the complete absence of any potential to engage with other allied assets (sats, aircraft, other ships, etc.). Add to this that crew is not modeled at all, and the player character has no in-game characteristics that can develop as the game progresses and I think KillerFish have missed an enormous golden opportunity to enhance the games appeal and replayability to including a few common "RPG-like" and strategic elements into the campaign.
This is what I mean when I say I'm not crazy about the "episodic" nature of the game. The Campaign is effectively a string of "Scenarios" in which the "between episodes" practices of the skipper, as well as the practices while traversing to mission locations are largely irrelevant. Add to this that the campaign map is not zoomable, time is not compressable, the controls are a bit obscure, and options for how to prepare and situate your sub for an encounter are seemingly quite limited (or at best, obscure): These are all in my opinions the most egregious deficiencies in the game, which is not meant to be an "attack," because as I've already said the game is wonderful.
Room for improvement is all I'm saying, and excellent areas to explore for Part Deux.
A lot of this stuff is lightweight when it comes to the logic to run it and the assets to implement it, though granted, I imagine it can add a lot of complexity to Q&A.
|
It seems to me that the game's design focus is on engagements, not on the operational level where the campaign should be. A related issue is that, the tools on the campaign interface for the user to determine engagement ranges are, at best obscure. Even worse, 25,000 yards is apparently the largest range possible, and often even when 25,000 yards is chosen the actual ranges are less.
Someone said "torpedo dodging simulator" and sadly, with my current experience with the game, that seems pretty accurate.