Convince me, DW fans.

[Enigma]

So, im an SH3 junkie. But, Im very interested in DW. Im a huge fan of the modern subs, more so than the U-boats, and im really itching to launch some sophisticated weaponry at in-land targets, and encounter enemy subs, etc. DW is sitting on the shelf at my local best buy. However, I admit im a tad intimidated. Im worried ill spend $40 only to find all the bells and whistles of modern technology to be too much for me. Not that im not willing to stare down a manual, or put the time in to learn, but I know alot about what subs can do, but barely anything about how its done.

I hope this makes sense. Im hoping to get some feedback, mainly from folks that were in the same boat (no pun intended) as me when they purchased DW....

Thanks in advance guys....

[Molon Labe]

The technology is actually the easy part. The part that people usually find challenging is TMA, and there's autocrew to do that for you if you want.

[Rip]

Using auto-crews you can abstract many of the difficult tasks. No one with an interest in modern ASW warfare could go wrong with this game.

[Wildcat]

It's not even the TMA that's difficult. All you have to do is line up some dots. After a while a little experience will help your TMA out. Things like how strong the contact is on sonar, or how many blades you've got showing on the DEMON display, that kind of thing will help you with your TMA if you decide to learn it manually. After that it's just a matter of dragging the little TMA cursor around until the dots fit.

In all honesty I started with 688i then sub command and never once needed the manual to figure out what I was doing. That's not to say I'm better than everyone else; but if you play enough you will figure things out on your own.

Dangerous Waters comes with numerous large tutorial videos on the second disk that you can browse and learn from. The manual is huge as well, it's like being back in 1999.

Dangerous Waters is a REALLY great game with very few shortcomings. Some of the most obvious ones are being fixed I'm sure, and when the next patch comes out I'm not sure there is going to be much left to improve on. There is NO other game that even comes close to the realism of this wonderful, interplatform game. No other sim even comes close. DC/SH2 were great, but Dangerous Waters is lightyears more advanced than those titles were.

If you're really interested in driving modern platforms, you should absolutely get this game. It's very scaleable. You can turn on all kinds of goodies (cheats) to help you learn the game. Once you start to become more proficient, you can disable them one by one until eventually you're doing everything by yourself (Though I'd venture to say most people turn on auto TMA when things get very busy).

Buy it!

[Bellman]

Wildcat: Nice write-up man !

Why SAS could'nt do much better than stick that quote somewhere where it counts.

Yeh - you got the progress just about right.

NB. OK so whats with all these Bellman laurels this morning ? - well heck the suns shining and its a hoiliday - and we've got a great new site layout. LwAmi has given us some great new toys (sorry tools !) Molons doing real business and best of all Wildcat reflects what, inspite of others niggles, we all know - that DW is just the best of all Sims !! (I'm only ON tea !!)

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by Enigma

Not that im not willing to stare down a manual, or put the time in to learn, but I know alot about what subs can do, but barely anything about how its done.

I hope this makes sense. Im hoping to get some feedback, mainly from folks that were in the same boat (no pun intended) as me when they purchased DW....

Thanks in advance guys....

You'll be fine. The user interface in DW is very straight forward. The most complicated thing in the whole game is TMA, which can be as complex or as simple as you want it to be. You can play with Autocrew enabled if you don't want to plunge into it immediately.

Really, the fun thing about wargames in general, is that you don't need to know how things are really done. They let you experiment with your own ideas about how things get done.

[Ula Jolly]

If you try DW, which I recommend, you too will have wet dreams about mixing the best of SHIII and DW. I think you will like it, but being an SH junkie, there will have to be adaptation. The Kilo is like a Type IID in 1945, and the Seawolf, it's an XXI in 1939. Honestly, you can screw everything and their grandmother with it and not make a sound.
I bought DW first, THEN SHIII. You will be amazed at the lack of terrain detail, which takes absolutely all the fun out of playing with the diesel/electric subs. No truly littoral waters. The game is best adapted for those Ohio-Akula battles out there in the open, under the ice or elsewhere. The many sensors are wicked, and it's kinda cool to collect data about the enemy.
The MH60 is like a Catalina/A-10 Warthog hybrid, on stereos. Loaded with all the essentials to send you to the bottom (assload of active/passive sensors), it is truly a bitch. Some people actually surface and seek to shoot them down with the onboard SAM system - crazy people mostly. But hey, if you're in a corner...
The Perry, now there... there is true goodness. I hate it myself, but don't say you never fantasized about commanding that Hunt II yourself! Submarines are best off when allied to it or not at all near it.

DW gives you so much more than SHIII in terms of instruments and weapons (!) and opponents! It's not AS FUN to sink the Nimitz as a Bogue (boo @ lack of semiprocedurally generated campaigns), but it can be very satisfying to battle it out as a Perry frigate, with a soviet frigate of the Udaloy class (you'll be screaming at the gatling guns to hammer faster). Similar fun can be had wrestling your P-3 against a Soviet Bear or any other aircraft.

Whatever you do, don't fantasize about 1024xtime.

If I was you, I'd try the demo beforehand. The game is excellent in it's execution...not so much in aesthetics, unfortunately. Some people can't get past the graphics barrier, which is a shame (you might be one of them). If you do, you'll find an excellent game/simulator. Though coming from SH3, you are better off trying the demo...needless to say SH3 is miles better in the graphics department and DW will be a step back. Though to be honest, I don't see how they could fit in SH3 style graphics with such attention to detail when it comes to platform hardware...and take into account the whole planet is mapped as opposed to only the Atlantic.

There are also minor glitches and bugs which have to be sorted out (as in SH3)...and the AI sometimes can be left wanting (as in SH3). But this hopefully will be sorted out in future patches.

I think of DW as more of a war simulator and SH3 as more of a game...you know those simulators the army uses to train the men? They concentrate more on accuracy then how pretty it all looks...this is sort of like that.

Let us know if you decide to buy it...to be honest...the graphics have their moments (I've taken some nice screenshots in game) so not all that bad once you get used to them, and it will give you hours upon hours of enjoyment. There you go...a completely fair review of the game.

In conclusion: I recommend it highly...

[Ula Jolly]

Originally Posted by Kurushio

...and take into account the whole planet is mapped as opposed to only the Atlantic.

I just have to nit... I do think in SHIII, all of the world is mapped? Venturing into the Indian ocean isn't rare for distancelovers, and the mission editor covers the entire world.

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by Kurushio

I think of DW as more of a war simulator and SH3 as more of a game...you know those simulators the army uses to train the men? They concentrate more on accuracy then how pretty it all looks...this is sort of like that.

You guys are WAY too hard on the graphics for DW. I bought DW right after I finished a short trip aboard an FFG, and was AMAZED at how well they'd captured the feel of things. They may not be the greatest graphics on the market, but they're not bad at all. Compared to Harpoon where all you have is tactical displays, the graphics are great.

I think the land definitely needs work, though. I've also noticed places which are geographically inaccurate, such as the port of Aden. It'd be nice to have more landmarks and things. I think that matters most for the airborne platforms, actually. Even so, it's still a beautiful simulation. It really isn't as bad as that.

[LuftWolf]

Originally Posted by SeaQueen

You guys are WAY too hard on the graphics for DW. I bought DW right after I finished a short trip aboard an FFG, and was AMAZED at how well they'd captured the feel of things. They may not be the greatest graphics on the market, but they're not bad at all. Compared to Harpoon where all you have is tactical displays, the graphics are great.

I think the land definitely needs work, though. I've also noticed places which are geographically inaccurate, such as the port of Aden. It'd be nice to have more landmarks and things. I think that matters most for the airborne platforms, actually. Even so, it's still a beautiful simulation. It really isn't as bad as that.

I completely agree here.

I spend the vast vast majority of my time staring at the interfaces, which are very well done. So what people are asking for is, essentially, a major overhaul to the least important part of this game for people playing the game the way it was designed to be played.

I don't really understand the push for graphic excellence, myself, I think we'd be better off writing better software, but then again, that's why I won't be a gaming industry executive.

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

I spend the vast vast majority of my time staring at the interfaces, which are very well done. So what people are asking for is, essentially, a major overhaul to the least important part of this game for people playing the game the way it was designed to be played.

I wouldn't say it was totally unimportant. Mk.1 Mod 0 eyeballs are some of the best sensors you've got, particularly with the airborne and surface platforms in the game. Good graphics adds a lot to that part of it. In multiplayer too, sometimes it's useful to just have a helo pilot zoom around and tell me what he sees, not worrying about any sensors. I've found a couple subs that way as they poked their periscopes up. :-)

I don't really understand the push for graphic excellence, myself, I think we'd be better off writing better software, but then again, that's why I won't be a gaming industry executive.

I can. The opposite of DW is Harpoon. There, the ENTIRE focus of the game is on the database and engine. The interface is just tactical displays. It's probably a more realistic representation of a CIC or attack center in a certain sense, but at the same time, sometimes it's fun to just walk out on the bridge wing of your destroyer, or peer through the periscope of your submarine. It aids the imagination and makes the game more immersive.

I like DW and Harpoon for two different reasons. They examine two different aspects of naval warfare. I suppose one COULD make a graphics intensive Harpoon, but it'd probably be at the expense of the things that make Harpoon wonderful. Similarly, what first drew me to DW was it's wonderful graphics and the way it captured the feel of things.

There's a lot to be said for both approaches to video wargaming. I think naval wargames are actually among the most difficult to produce, particularly as a video game. As table top wargames they'e a little easier because the audience for those is a little bit more comfortable with abstract. The thing is, naval warfare IS abstract, and let's face it most of the ocean is just empty space.

I think there could be some wonderful graphics for naval wargames, though, particularly if the focus is on the environment itself. Representing coastal areas, the weather (fog, waves, haze, etc.), the water's qualities, bioluminescence, whales and dolphins, that's all good stuff.

When I was cruising aboard the R. G. BRADLEY as part of my job, we passed through the JFKs battlegroup which was out on maneuvers. I was totally blown away by the fact that you could hide an aircraft carrier in the haze. I could see it on the radar screen. We were looking right at it, but nothing was to be seen because the haze was so bad that day.

This is all a part of naval warfare too, aside from the more abstract questions of tactics. Ideally, I'd like a game that had it all.

[Deathblow]

Originally Posted by SeaQueen

I wouldn't say it was totally unimportant. Mk.1 Mod 0 eyeballs are some of the best sensors you've got, particularly with the airborne and surface platforms in the game. Good graphics adds a lot to that part of it. In multiplayer too, sometimes it's useful to just have a helo pilot zoom around and tell me what he sees, not worrying about any sensors. I've found a couple subs that way as they poked their periscopes up. :-)



I can. The opposite of DW is Harpoon. There, the ENTIRE focus of the game is on the database and engine. The interface is just tactical displays. It's probably a more realistic representation of a CIC or attack center in a certain sense, but at the same time, sometimes it's fun to just walk out on the bridge wing of your destroyer, or peer through the periscope of your submarine. It aids the imagination and makes the game more immersive.

I like DW and Harpoon for two different reasons. They examine two different aspects of naval warfare. I suppose one COULD make a graphics intensive Harpoon, but it'd probably be at the expense of the things that make Harpoon wonderful. Similarly, what first drew me to DW was it's wonderful graphics and the way it captured the feel of things.

There's a lot to be said for both approaches to video wargaming. I think naval wargames are actually among the most difficult to produce, particularly as a video game. As table top wargames they'e a little easier because the audience for those is a little bit more comfortable with abstract. The thing is, naval warfare IS abstract, and let's face it most of the ocean is just empty space.

I think there could be some wonderful graphics for naval wargames, though, particularly if the focus is on the environment itself. Representing coastal areas, the weather (fog, waves, haze, etc.), the water's qualities, bioluminescence, whales and dolphins, that's all good stuff.

When I was cruising aboard the R. G. BRADLEY as part of my job, we passed through the JFKs battlegroup which was out on maneuvers. I was totally blown away by the fact that you could hide an aircraft carrier in the haze. I could see it on the radar screen. We were looking right at it, but nothing was to be seen because the haze was so bad that day.

This is all a part of naval warfare too, aside from the more abstract questions of tactics. Ideally, I'd like a game that had it all.

I agree. Its always a plus to be able to feel the power and majesty of the ocean around you... and it really drives home the immersion IMHO. I like games like Virtual Sailor just for that reason, the sounds of gulls, the russel of the waves, and hypnotizing undulations of the wavecrests... when well done you can practically smell the seawater. My perfect game would include substituting the Virtual Sailor graphics into the DW nav map graphics... the waves mechanics and ambient sounds are better. The DW models themselves? Well.... their skinning could use some work.

As far as the Consoles and interfaces... they aren't really much more function than than one could expect from the old 1990 or 1995 navy sims... http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/68...meShotId,9160/ ... some would actually say less functional, just with shinier buttons.

One thing I wish that SCS would consider is using more drop-down menus or list (like the SW Stadimeter or FFG sonar classification), rather than the tedius scroll menus (like the stadimeter classification of the LA, or NB classification of the LA and akula). Drop down menus/list are just more ergonomic and functional... its really a mystery why SCS opted the scroll boxes...

... other reasonable aspects of the GUI have been omitted as well... some more infamous omissions than others... The Harpoon waypoint selection for sub launches is missing, but present for the FFG, one of the most noteable descrepancies. The lack of a more in-depth torpedo wire control menu is another one of the bigger omissions that was mysteryiously neglected. Other omissions are less functional but more a simple matter of convience. For example the FFG has a TA depth menu, but the submarines do not... or a ingame sonar profile library (so that a suspected profile can be displayed on the NB without neccessitating a current signal, but more a quick reference of what the player will be looking for...fortunately this has been provided by independent contributors for out-game programs) is another omission that's simple, yet convient and would add to console utilization.

All and all I give the graphics a C and the console design a C as well.

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by Deathblow

I agree. Its always a plus to be able to feel the power and majesty of the ocean around you... and it really drives home the immersion IMHO. I like games like Virtual Sailor just for that reason, the sounds of gulls, the russel of the waves, and hypnotizing undulations of the wavecrests... when well done you can practically smell the seawater. My perfect game would include substituting the Virtual Sailor graphics into the DW nav map graphics... the waves mechanics and ambient sounds are better. The DW models themselves? Well.... their skinning could use some work.

Virtual sailor has some really beautiful graphics, but they're almost TOO pretty. There's a lot of ports that are grey, dirty, nasty places. I don't see those in their scenarios.

[Smaragdadler]

I have made a newbie guide for DW. It's called 'Notfallmappe - The Landlubber Guide for Dangerous Waters'. You can find it at www.subguru.com in the download section. I should be helpfull for those who are only familar with ww2 sub tactics to learn about modern ASW.