[Shadow]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

"Slightest flaws"?
A subsim that claims to deliver the commanders perspective yet forces the player to drive the boat himself (from all the things it has to be that!?) and doesn't even have voices for the crew, sorry, that isn't a "slight flaw", that's a major flaw - as many pointed out on steam and here.
Personally, I consider the lack of voices a deal breaker.
I didn't even ask before release about them, because I considered them to be absolute standard.

And that's just two things.

CW has more issues.
The AI probably causing the most problems, from enemy subs that regularily ground themselves nose first, to lackluster torpedo evasion and questionable sensor-values/behavior.
Or what about the silly SEAL/TLAM missions?
Are the devs serious about these!? They are beyond ridiculous, especially the SEALs mission(s). Say "simulation" again please.

This probably will all be fixed. But I can't see into the future, so I will review what we have so far -and what we have now, is not a sub sim in my books - and that has nothing to do with DW.

Speaking of.
I don't put any Sonalysts titles on a podest, quite the opposite. DW, nor the older ones, aren't perfect - but at least they can be considered a true simulation of submarine warfare, despite some flaws, as they at least deliver a rounded experience. CW still feels like a tablet game that is very empty on a closer look.

No neutrals, no friendlies, no nothing - uh, whales, fancy!

It's a quick-action underwater shooter with some semi-authentic features to create the illusion of a simulation.
If that is the new acceptable standard for "naval simulation", the genre is dead for good indeed.

Feel free to disagree, but this is my honest opinion after multiple campaigns in CW, and years with DW and other titles.
So much for "not being fair".

I suppose the severity of a flaw is a subjective matter, in this case. Personally, I'm all for more control options, and voiceovers will add a lot to the experience, but I can hardly see the lack of those as a critical dealbreaker. To each their own.

Cold Waters does have issues that, while fixable, are current issues nonetheless. They cannot be ignored, but at the same time, being an avid gamer, I know it's par for the course when it comes to freshly-launched games. As long as there's a promise to fix them and the devs aren't significantly overdue, I cannot bury the game for it.

As subsimmers, it behooves us to give them the benefit of patience: if our niche is really this unforgiving, so poised to slam newcomers for not being perfect on release (a supremely unrealistic expectation), it should come as no surprise that hardly anyone ever bothers to bring new entries the genre. The niche would be largely responsible of killing the genre, as opposed to allegedly "unworthy" games.

And to address other specific concerns:

Neutrals? Let's think this through: it's World War III. Neutral shipping will either try to stay the hell away from hot spots, and in the event they have to cross a warzone, it's highly likely they'll be broadcasting their position and neutrality as loudly as possible to avoid being accidentally sunk. They'll also be probably warned off by military surface groups, so you won't find them in any proximity to enemy targets (i.e. not in any immediate mission area).

Friendlies? Modern subs operate alone and largely unsupported (especially in a 1968/1984 scenario). You can be sure there will be other allied submarines and task groups doing their thing, but as a submarine whose primordial purpose is to remain hidden and unknown, you won't be getting close to them. Not tactically, at least.

It comes down to strategic map representation, really. Neutrals would add nothing since they'd be clearly marked as such, you'd know where they are at all times and you wouldn't have anything to do with them. Friendlies could perhaps make an appearance on the general map, but only if a mission explicitly tasks you with acting as a vanguard and clearing the way for them (that'd be interesting), but you'd never coexist with them tactically, within an immediate mission area: you're an unknown contact, and as such you'd only invite friendly fire.

The only exception to this last point I can think of would perhaps be Soviet sub doctrine. I think Soviet subs cooperated at times, and I'm not sure how often, but that's about it.

On the whole, you wouldn't see a strategic map full of unknown icons waiting to be identified because this is a World War with clearly defined sides which are fighting at their fullest capacity. It's not a Harpoon-esque flashpoint scenario with very limited deployments and random "passersby". As a sub commander, you know everything you need to know about your mission, the position of friendlies is likely known but irrelevant to your individual assignment, and so is that of neutrals. Adding all these pointless icons to the strategic view would contribute nothing but clutter, and you'd never find the aforementioned actors mixing in with enemies on the tactical scale your sub operates at.

So yeah, laugh at the whales, but they're literally the only neutral contacts who could randomly wander into a mission area, because a) they're the only ones oblivious to the big human war, and b) they're the only ones physically incapable of communicating they have nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Well, I'm sure how Red Storm Rising handled its TLAM mission had something to do with it. They were apparently quite close to the shore. So close they were right next to a Grisha... I suggest you write Tom Clancy ... oh yeah, he's not with us anymore...

Besides, a TLAM mission in the middle of nowhere would be a non-mission. for such a mission, they might as well put a dot on the strategic map you navigate to, then you just click "Fire TLAMs" and it is done.

Also, it could be argued that by getting very close to the target, you minimize the chance of the missile being intercepted. Sure, firing a cruise missile from hundreds of miles away would be safer for the sub, but you'd give the enemy ample time to detect the warhead and put a ship in its path to shoot it down. Which would be extremely easy for them considering there's always defending vessels in the vicinity of the target.