A message to developer and community documentation writers

MarkShot · 08-04-05, 07:42 PM

You know from time to time, you see people in the forums struggling with DW.

After attempting to play SC quite a few times over the years, I am finally getting into and understanding it. That is not to say that I didn't understand the basic concepts when I got the game in 2001.

However, I have recently realized just how subtle a game SC is (probably DW) too. Most of the developer training materials and other stuff freely available focuses on very clear and pristine examples. However, it has recently dawned on me that it is all about only the slightest hints of information and glimmers of intuition.

As a total novice to sub games/naval warefare, one reads these materials. They do a good job of demonstrating the basics. The noob is left with the impression that this is how the game is played. Soon, you get very frustrated, because in trying to match the very clear cut cases in the training materials, you end up acting upon situations much too late and being handicapped by a fixation on solid and accurate use of the tools.

So, for sonar, you end up trying to get fat nice lines on waterfall ... maybe assign a bow tracker too to get a master contact ... maybe try to get a solid signature match with the filter ... Instead you should be on narrow band focusing on the low frequency spectrum looking for even a faint line (or the Akula) just a little winking pixel suggesting something is there ... also zooming into the low frequency band to make sure that sound component is solid and does not have a slight shadow perhaps indicating something else lurking on the same LOB ... you should be looking at the pattern in DEMON ... does it look faint like a sub? ... DEMON not just trying to count blades but trying see if TPKs tested against TMA generated speed would give a sub or surface screw ...

So, for TMA, you end up getting many LOBs without doing much, since you are waiting to ID contact ... maybe just do another leg ... Instead as soon as you have that contact, you should be going for the fastest TMA possible ... with the TMA you can use that over at DEMON ... with TMA if you get a TIW you are in a much better position to shoot than just a snapshot ... with the TMA generated range you can look at the screw noise in DEMON and decide if those faint lines are a close sub or distant surface contact ... with the TMA and you get a TIW you will know what weapon envelope you are in ... so getting a fast TMA even before anything has happened is important ...

So, for TMA, maybe you think will wait for a really solid solution over 20 minutes before shooting ... Instead perhaps you should just shoot when you have a decent solution as the time it takes for your torp to reach the target will allow you plenty of time to perfect the solution and wire guide ...

So, for TMA, maybe you use auto-TMA which does a good job as it is too challenging to do yourself especially with a lot of contacts ... Instead when it comes to finally running down the target, wire guiding is much more productive than simply starting with and depending on a good solution. If you've done it right, you are not that close and that target is going to maneuver. Auto-TMA doesn't know the target is evading a torp. It doesn't know about DEMON. It may produce range jumps or transform rapid speed changes into rapid course changes. So, if you manually TMA as you wire guide, you can use DEMON and you can chain from one solution to the next two minutes later to produce a consistent pattern of evasion by the target.

...

Okay, I have rambled, but my point is this: For Sonalysts, Battlefront, and Community Authors, I think it is important that beyond the basic concepts that the completely uninitiated are not given an impression that things are "cut and dry". This led me and leads others to try to replicate this behavior in their game play. And that results in frustration as opposed to excellence. If you write/teach, you must convey how subtle the game is and how much focus needs to be put on these aspects in order to appreciate and play well. I have only recently realized this myself.

Thanks.

Bellman · 08-04-05, 09:09 PM

Nicely put Mark. You have encapsulated my, and Im sure many players, experience.

SCX is a beautifully crafted and implemented piece of work incorporating some features that have gone in DW. :hmm:

I hope someone

someday will compile a newbie guide particularly for sub. players as there are plenty
of pearls to be prized out of some pretty tight oysters.

Bellman · 08-05-05, 12:35 AM

Its always bad to re-read at 0630 am what you wrote at 0315am.

Let me say here I/we talk about 'extra subtleties' and nuances for Newbies or should that be second year students.

Where would any of us be without first historicaly in my case the Blue Book and then the excellent Tacman.
Thanks, possibly alone, to those reference works I personaly survived my first year.

Now in DW we have 'Tips and Tweaks' and the Landlubber all building our operational knowledge bank.

It would be disrespectful not to acknowledge those contributions.

MarkShot · 08-05-05, 09:03 AM

Well, of course, I recognize and am grateful to all the fine materials produced.

I had just wanted to point out what had taken me about three years to see and may have ultimately prevented others from embracing SC in the past or DW in the future. It is important for the guides to emphasize that beyond learning the basic skills, a key component/philosophy of the game is learning to do more with less information faster. I didn't immediately see that myself ... if anything initial exposure to something like SC after flight sims ... is the belief that it is a very slow plodding game. That is only true in a sense and if you continue to hold that impression ... it is unlikely that you will be very successful at it.

Bellman · 08-05-05, 11:35 AM

Mark I think you misinterpreted my last - it was in no way a criticism of you but merely a veiled appology
for my own tactlessness when posting at 0315 am in saying:-

'I hope someone someday will compile a newbie guide particularly for sub. players'

That was I thought tactless on my part given such sterling works as Blue Book and Tacman.

Must deal with insomnia in another way.

But a months reroofing here has hammered my head into my shoulders

On my part I will not be sensitive as an ex flight simmer and will interpret your 'if you continue to hold that impression ... it is
unlikely that you will be very successful at it.' as - if one ......one will not be very successful at it.

Bellman · 08-05-05, 11:37 AM

:rotfl: Theres that avator again - perhaps I get to keep it now - very good likeness. :rotfl:

SquidB · 08-05-05, 12:37 PM

I agree, entirely with the orginal post, its taken me years to understand really what is usefull to do in this sim. (often the oposite that is in the orginal manuals)

The Bluebook, tacmanual and others have been excellent aids...as well as a good few tips on MP from sympathetic players.

My enjoyment of SC and DW is now ten times increased that i sort of have a feel for what im doing.

However ive still got a long way to go...and thats the challenge and the reason for the longevity of these titles. After years of play im still engaged in sussing out the sim.

MarkShot · 08-05-05, 03:44 PM

Bellman,

I understood you, I just wanted to make sure that the selfless individuals understood that I was not criticizing their work, but instead trying emphasize why despite such high quality materials you see folks from time to time walking away from SC and DW saying that "they just don't get it".

For most games, it is usually the ones who are experts who produce materials. Usually, such individuals have had an interest in the topic material so long that it is hard to recall when the basics were not second nature to them. I was in that situation when teaching flight sim combat. However, what helped me to get the key points across to total new players was doing two hours of flying/tutoring each night online. That permitted me to see it from their perspective and preconceived notions. It is very hard to be an expert and yet teach something as if you are starting with a clean slate.

Wim Libaers · 08-05-05, 04:59 PM

There have been similar cases with flightsims. Jane's F/A-18 would be a nice example. The manual gave a detailed description of the modeled avionics, and nearly nothing else. Air combat tactics? Ground attack tactics? SEAD tactics? How to properly interpret the marshall stack radio commands the carrier gives you? Nothing to be found in the manual, although it was all in the sim. Just as in DW, players had to rely on previous experience with other sims, and documents on the web made by more experienced players.

Bellman · 08-05-05, 11:55 PM

I confess that its taken me far too long to get to grips with this sim. Something I have'nt experienced
before with other similarly complex simulations.

Its like a Russian doll you just keep pulling more and more out. One (sorry

) just keeps learning.
As SquidB said much is the opposite to the manual or first impressions and you learn a lot if
you are lucky enough to engage with helpful experienced MP players.

Mark we agree I think about 'openness' and the need to share all information in a fully co-operative way
to enhance the scene for all players. 'Tips' and Landlubber are new developments which open things
up far beyond the 'closed shop' of SC/SCX.

But particularly in the Submarine divers sector old habits of secrecy remain. The competitive structure of fleets
such as the Seawolves militates against full openness. On the other hand progress brings the
Pandoras Box of secrets released on Courses. But all this is achieved at a terrible cost in the wasteage
of newbies who are ''walking away from SC and DW saying that they just don't get it", or thinking they are useless !

Further individual competitiveness, in Fleet, need to be melded into the competitive teamplay necessary
for MP multi-tasking. Possibly the sub divers mindset is generaly not that of a team player.

My concern is that we need to drasticaly reduce this wasteage. How is another matter.

It would be immensely helpful to the education process if some senior experienced divers
would see the light and become mentors

I can think of several admirable Fleet Officers, for whom I have great respect , who could perform
this function with great distinction. :|\ ..........after retirement

An enhanced level of understanding of the sim benefits us all both in more stimulating play
and more importantly in maintaining and building the user base vital for the future.

MarkShot · 08-06-05, 03:12 PM

It might be interesting to compile a list of the most common noob sub warfare misconceptions. Personally, I don't have enough experience with veteran and new players to know.

For example, when teaching online air combat, noobs almost invariably believed that dogfighting was the art of yanking the stick and turning as hard as possible into your adversary.

The availability of online play shouldn't require restricting publishing and access to information and techniques. In that regard, the Battlefront forums for the Combat Mission series provide a very positive example. The forums are incredibly educational despite the fact that many players play PBEM or TCP. Although I only play SP, reading posts from online players has greatly enriched my experience.

Bellman · 08-06-05, 04:06 PM

The trouble is sometimes the advice from experienced real-life submariners gets in the way if particular
features are not exhibited in the sim.

Heres a case in point (No names no pack...) I post about DW sub turn rates and ex real diver confidently
asserts real torp avoidance drill would not allow (ever implied) max rudder plus max speed. And max rudder = speed burn off.

Now Seawolves SOAC drill for sub Subrock avoidance recommends just that . Futhermore tests in game
prove there is a very marginal burn off (Unralisticaly)

OK this is the exception that proves the rule - there are in game many normal instances where such
excessive manouvering is both unnecessary and undesirable.

Constant tension between reality v and simulation. :hmm:

08-04-05, 07:42 PM	#1
MarkShot Ace of the Deep Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,134 Downloads: 93 Uploads: 0	A message to developer and community documentation writers You know from time to time, you see people in the forums struggling with DW. After attempting to play SC quite a few times over the years, I am finally getting into and understanding it. That is not to say that I didn't understand the basic concepts when I got the game in 2001. However, I have recently realized just how subtle a game SC is (probably DW) too. Most of the developer training materials and other stuff freely available focuses on very clear and pristine examples. However, it has recently dawned on me that it is all about only the slightest hints of information and glimmers of intuition. As a total novice to sub games/naval warefare, one reads these materials. They do a good job of demonstrating the basics. The noob is left with the impression that this is how the game is played. Soon, you get very frustrated, because in trying to match the very clear cut cases in the training materials, you end up acting upon situations much too late and being handicapped by a fixation on solid and accurate use of the tools. So, for sonar, you end up trying to get fat nice lines on waterfall ... maybe assign a bow tracker too to get a master contact ... maybe try to get a solid signature match with the filter ... Instead you should be on narrow band focusing on the low frequency spectrum looking for even a faint line (or the Akula) just a little winking pixel suggesting something is there ... also zooming into the low frequency band to make sure that sound component is solid and does not have a slight shadow perhaps indicating something else lurking on the same LOB ... you should be looking at the pattern in DEMON ... does it look faint like a sub? ... DEMON not just trying to count blades but trying see if TPKs tested against TMA generated speed would give a sub or surface screw ... So, for TMA, you end up getting many LOBs without doing much, since you are waiting to ID contact ... maybe just do another leg ... Instead as soon as you have that contact, you should be going for the fastest TMA possible ... with the TMA you can use that over at DEMON ... with TMA if you get a TIW you are in a much better position to shoot than just a snapshot ... with the TMA generated range you can look at the screw noise in DEMON and decide if those faint lines are a close sub or distant surface contact ... with the TMA and you get a TIW you will know what weapon envelope you are in ... so getting a fast TMA even before anything has happened is important ... So, for TMA, maybe you think will wait for a really solid solution over 20 minutes before shooting ... Instead perhaps you should just shoot when you have a decent solution as the time it takes for your torp to reach the target will allow you plenty of time to perfect the solution and wire guide ... So, for TMA, maybe you use auto-TMA which does a good job as it is too challenging to do yourself especially with a lot of contacts ... Instead when it comes to finally running down the target, wire guiding is much more productive than simply starting with and depending on a good solution. If you've done it right, you are not that close and that target is going to maneuver. Auto-TMA doesn't know the target is evading a torp. It doesn't know about DEMON. It may produce range jumps or transform rapid speed changes into rapid course changes. So, if you manually TMA as you wire guide, you can use DEMON and you can chain from one solution to the next two minutes later to produce a consistent pattern of evasion by the target. ... Okay, I have rambled, but my point is this: For Sonalysts, Battlefront, and Community Authors, I think it is important that beyond the basic concepts that the completely uninitiated are not given an impression that things are "cut and dry". This led me and leads others to try to replicate this behavior in their game play. And that results in frustration as opposed to excellence. If you write/teach, you must convey how subtle the game is and how much focus needs to be put on these aspects in order to appreciate and play well. I have only recently realized this myself. Thanks. __________________ War games, not wars! --- Only a small few profit from war (that should not stand)!

08-05-05, 09:03 AM	#4
MarkShot Ace of the Deep Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,134 Downloads: 93 Uploads: 0	Well, of course, I recognize and am grateful to all the fine materials produced. I had just wanted to point out what had taken me about three years to see and may have ultimately prevented others from embracing SC in the past or DW in the future. It is important for the guides to emphasize that beyond learning the basic skills, a key component/philosophy of the game is learning to do more with less information faster. I didn't immediately see that myself ... if anything initial exposure to something like SC after flight sims ... is the belief that it is a very slow plodding game. That is only true in a sense and if you continue to hold that impression ... it is unlikely that you will be very successful at it. __________________ War games, not wars! --- Only a small few profit from war (that should not stand)!

08-05-05, 03:44 PM	#8
MarkShot Ace of the Deep Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,134 Downloads: 93 Uploads: 0	Bellman, I understood you, I just wanted to make sure that the selfless individuals understood that I was not criticizing their work, but instead trying emphasize why despite such high quality materials you see folks from time to time walking away from SC and DW saying that "they just don't get it". For most games, it is usually the ones who are experts who produce materials. Usually, such individuals have had an interest in the topic material so long that it is hard to recall when the basics were not second nature to them. I was in that situation when teaching flight sim combat. However, what helped me to get the key points across to total new players was doing two hours of flying/tutoring each night online. That permitted me to see it from their perspective and preconceived notions. It is very hard to be an expert and yet teach something as if you are starting with a clean slate. __________________ War games, not wars! --- Only a small few profit from war (that should not stand)!

08-06-05, 03:12 PM	#11
MarkShot Ace of the Deep Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,134 Downloads: 93 Uploads: 0	It might be interesting to compile a list of the most common noob sub warfare misconceptions. Personally, I don't have enough experience with veteran and new players to know. For example, when teaching online air combat, noobs almost invariably believed that dogfighting was the art of yanking the stick and turning as hard as possible into your adversary. The availability of online play shouldn't require restricting publishing and access to information and techniques. In that regard, the Battlefront forums for the Combat Mission series provide a very positive example. The forums are incredibly educational despite the fact that many players play PBEM or TCP. Although I only play SP, reading posts from online players has greatly enriched my experience. __________________ War games, not wars! --- Only a small few profit from war (that should not stand)!

08-04-05, 09:09 PM	#2
Bellman Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,945 Downloads: 220 Uploads: 0	Nicely put Mark. You have encapsulated my, and Im sure many players, experience. SCX is a beautifully crafted and implemented piece of work incorporating some features that have gone in DW. :hmm: I hope someone someday will compile a newbie guide particularly for sub. players as there are plenty of pearls to be prized out of some pretty tight oysters.

08-05-05, 12:35 AM	#3
Bellman Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,945 Downloads: 220 Uploads: 0	Its always bad to re-read at 0630 am what you wrote at 0315am. Let me say here I/we talk about 'extra subtleties' and nuances for Newbies or should that be second year students. Where would any of us be without first historicaly in my case the Blue Book and then the excellent Tacman. Thanks, possibly alone, to those reference works I personaly survived my first year. Now in DW we have 'Tips and Tweaks' and the Landlubber all building our operational knowledge bank. It would be disrespectful not to acknowledge those contributions.

08-05-05, 11:35 AM	#5
Bellman Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,945 Downloads: 220 Uploads: 0	Mark I think you misinterpreted my last - it was in no way a criticism of you but merely a veiled appology for my own tactlessness when posting at 0315 am in saying:- 'I hope someone someday will compile a newbie guide particularly for sub. players' That was I thought tactless on my part given such sterling works as Blue Book and Tacman. Must deal with insomnia in another way. But a months reroofing here has hammered my head into my shoulders On my part I will not be sensitive as an ex flight simmer and will interpret your 'if you continue to hold that impression ... it is unlikely that you will be very successful at it.' as - if one ......one will not be very successful at it.

08-05-05, 11:37 AM	#6
Bellman Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,945 Downloads: 220 Uploads: 0	:rotfl: Theres that avator again - perhaps I get to keep it now - very good likeness. :rotfl:

08-05-05, 12:37 PM	#7
SquidB Officer Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Lytham UK Posts: 244 Downloads: 169 Uploads: 0	I agree, entirely with the orginal post, its taken me years to understand really what is usefull to do in this sim. (often the oposite that is in the orginal manuals) The Bluebook, tacmanual and others have been excellent aids...as well as a good few tips on MP from sympathetic players. My enjoyment of SC and DW is now ten times increased that i sort of have a feel for what im doing. However ive still got a long way to go...and thats the challenge and the reason for the longevity of these titles. After years of play im still engaged in sussing out the sim.

08-05-05, 04:59 PM	#9
Wim Libaers Samurai Navy Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Flanders Posts: 569 Downloads: 4 Uploads: 0	There have been similar cases with flightsims. Jane's F/A-18 would be a nice example. The manual gave a detailed description of the modeled avionics, and nearly nothing else. Air combat tactics? Ground attack tactics? SEAD tactics? How to properly interpret the marshall stack radio commands the carrier gives you? Nothing to be found in the manual, although it was all in the sim. Just as in DW, players had to rely on previous experience with other sims, and documents on the web made by more experienced players.

08-05-05, 11:55 PM	#10
Bellman Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,945 Downloads: 220 Uploads: 0	I confess that its taken me far too long to get to grips with this sim. Something I have'nt experienced before with other similarly complex simulations. Its like a Russian doll you just keep pulling more and more out. One (sorry ) just keeps learning. As SquidB said much is the opposite to the manual or first impressions and you learn a lot if you are lucky enough to engage with helpful experienced MP players. Mark we agree I think about 'openness' and the need to share all information in a fully co-operative way to enhance the scene for all players. 'Tips' and Landlubber are new developments which open things up far beyond the 'closed shop' of SC/SCX. But particularly in the Submarine divers sector old habits of secrecy remain. The competitive structure of fleets such as the Seawolves militates against full openness. On the other hand progress brings the Pandoras Box of secrets released on Courses. But all this is achieved at a terrible cost in the wasteage of newbies who are ''walking away from SC and DW saying that they just don't get it", or thinking they are useless ! Further individual competitiveness, in Fleet, need to be melded into the competitive teamplay necessary for MP multi-tasking. Possibly the sub divers mindset is generaly not that of a team player. My concern is that we need to drasticaly reduce this wasteage. How is another matter. It would be immensely helpful to the education process if some senior experienced divers would see the light and become mentors I can think of several admirable Fleet Officers, for whom I have great respect , who could perform this function with great distinction. :\|\ ..........after retirement An enhanced level of understanding of the sim benefits us all both in more stimulating play and more importantly in maintaining and building the user base vital for the future.

08-06-05, 04:06 PM	#12
Bellman Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,945 Downloads: 220 Uploads: 0	The trouble is sometimes the advice from experienced real-life submariners gets in the way if particular features are not exhibited in the sim. Heres a case in point (No names no pack...) I post about DW sub turn rates and ex real diver confidently asserts real torp avoidance drill would not allow (ever implied) max rudder plus max speed. And max rudder = speed burn off. Now Seawolves SOAC drill for sub Subrock avoidance recommends just that . Futhermore tests in game prove there is a very marginal burn off (Unralisticaly) OK this is the exception that proves the rule - there are in game many normal instances where such excessive manouvering is both unnecessary and undesirable. Constant tension between reality v and simulation. :hmm: