The difference between WWII subsims and modern subsims..?

[LoBlo]

As far as gameplay is concerned, what do you feel are the primary differences between a subsim of modern naval combat (Fast Attack, Dangerous Waters, etc) and an WWII subsim (SHIII, etc)? Does the gameplay and experience feel about the same with about the same player tasking? Are there any differences to the game "feel"?

The reason I ask is that I've always has played the modern subsim like DW and Fast Attack, not the old WWII subsim was curious to the gameplay differences. WWII sensors are less sensitive and weapons are dumber, so I've always expected that the game was probably less about detection, identification, and weapon evasion, and more about periscope peaks, and lining up for torp launches.

Are my assumptions correct?

[Drebbel]

Modern subsim = Getting sweaty palms and small eyes from watching screens all the time

WWII subsim = Feeling the wind, getting water in your face and getting dizzy from panning the scope.

The fact that one is never topside and rarely uses the scope is one of the main reasons why I do not like playing modern subsims.

A big difference is also the learning curve. It is normally very steep for a modern subsim.

[kiwi_2005]

WWII subsims is 90% of the time hunt on the surface. 10% submerged when ready to attack or to evade aircraft, escorts.
Modern subsims hunt and attack submerged never surface, stay submerged and remain undetected. Sonar is your friend.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by kiwi_2005

WWII subsims is 90% of the time hunt on the surface. 10% submerged when ready to attack or to evade aircraft, escorts.
Modern subsims hunt and attack submerged never surface, stay submerged and remain undetected. Sonar is your friend.

Thats not strictly true, the moreso in the post cold war era.
If you're talking about blue water nuclear submarines then i agree with your assessment.
Another thing is doing littoral warfare with diesel electric subs such as the kilo.
Makes for a very wwii-ish experience.

[tycho102]

The difference is wire-guided, active sonar torpedoes. Things were more analog back in WWII.

There's other differences, but that is the over-riding one.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by tycho102

The difference is wire-guided, active sonar torpedoes. Things were more analog back in WWII.

There's other differences, but that is the over-riding one.

How about wakehomer torpedos ? (not wireguided)
Or passive wire guided torpedos ?
Or supercavitating torpedos ? (not wireguided)
Or subroc torpedos ? (not wireguided)
Lets not reduce everything to the adcap mk48 (the only torpedo in the us naval inventory).

[kiwi_2005]

Originally Posted by goldorak

Another thing is doing littoral warfare with diesel electric subs such as the kilo. Makes for a very wwii-ish experience.

When i use to play DW i only commanded the Kilo for some reason, maybe it reminded me of a ww2 sub as you had to charge the batteries. I took a liking to the kilo class even tho she was pretty noisy compared to a seawolf.

I think you can boil it down to one being technical (taking the human, falable side out of the equation [modern]) and the other as being more (seat of the pants, instinctual [WWII]).

I've played both and am currently hooked on SH3.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by waste gate

I think you can boil it down to one being technical (taking the human, falable side out of the equation [modern]) and the other as being more (seat of the pants, instinctual [WWII]).

I've played both and am currently hooked on SH3.

If DW had the graphics engine of SH III the opinion of most people in this thread would change radically.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by kiwi_2005

When i use to play DW i only commanded the Kilo for some reason, maybe it reminded me of a ww2 sub as you had to charge the batteries. I took a liking to the kilo class even tho she was pretty noisy compared to a seawolf.

At slow speed the kilo is virtually undetectable and makes less noise than a seawolf.

[kiwi_2005]

Originally Posted by goldorak

At slow speed the kilo is virtually undetectable and makes less noise than a seawolf.

Yes i think Kapitan also told me the same info. Back to sub academy for me!

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by kiwi_2005

Yes i think Kapitan also told me the same info. Back to sub academy for me!

The only weak point of the kilo is that its weapons are mostly short range, and a 688I or seawolf can stalk the kilo with active sonar.
Thats why a well constructed scenario will always have an akula in zone (to keep at bay active sonar hungry us skippers :rotfl::rotfl.

Originally Posted by goldorak

If DW had the graphics engine of SH III the opinion of most people in this thread would change radically.

I agree with you 100% goldorak. With the current state of gaming I suspect, since compromises have to be made, that the DW designers opted for the technical side while the SH3 folks went toward the graphics. The question is then, how much money is the average subsimmer willing to through at a PC game? As I recall SH3 was USD $49.00 and DW was USD $59.00 (w/manual). That's USD $110.00. Does it meet the price point? How many Sub Sim players are out there?

I don't know the answers to that. But, I'd buy the sim if the qualities of both DW and SH3 could be melded into one 'super' sim.

waste gate