Feature Requests

[Halcyon]

There are 2 things that would greatly enhance my CW experience:

1. Some type of clock...either a mission clock or the actual game clock with seconds included in the 3D portion of the game.

2. The ability to add own marks to the tactical map. In DW you could do this by pressing Enter and a small cross would drop on your cursor.
This would let me mark the last known loc of a solid contact before the solution changes and my TMA officer decides to place the new solution 20k yards away.

I want to keep track of where he was instead of guessing. Makes tracking easier when the bearing line changes and I know roughly where he used to be, so I can aim a snapshot if I need to.

[-Pv-]

I agree the re-positioning of a degraded target is a bit of frustration. I think both positions should be shown for a while, the degraded a ghost and the brighter high rez position removed after a while if the target doesn't resolve favorably.
-Pv-

[mpow66m]

How about range rings around noise makers and sonar bouys.

[-Pv-]

They don't have ranges. Like your own sub's sensors, they suffer from the same environmental conditions and crew interpretation.

I would like to see a "no contacts" message in the 3D simulation so I don't have to ESC every 5 seconds to discover if I can end the scenario or not.
-Pv-

[Swordsman422]

Some I'd like:

1) Active sonar intercepts generate sierra contacts or help polish existing contacts.

2) Upon loss of contact with a still-living target, a yellow icon replaces the red contact on the map with estimated motion based on already existing data. If the target was on course 235 at a speed of 8 kts when I lost contact, I'd like to have an estimation of where it might be instead of the static contact point remaining at the last known location.

3) Eventual inclusion of the Hotel- and Golf-classes, with random encounters or intercept missions. These early ballistic missile boats would still be in service and hunted during the 1968 campaign.

4) Eventual inclusion of the Balao and Gato GUPPYs, Skate-, and Barbel-class boats, and more one-offs like USS Nautilus, USS Seawolf (SSN-575), and USS Tullibee.


5) Considerations given to the number of units in service. In the 1968 campaign I am currently playing, I have sunk 15 November-class SSNs. 15. Of a class of 13 boats. So all plus two more. The Foxtrot-class of DE boats consisted of 58 in Soviet service, and yet I have maybe encountered 4 of these. I should be seeing a LOT more of the Foxtrots and fewer Novembers. Plus, once I sank the 13th November, I shouldn't be encountering then anymore.

6) This one will probably take the longest, and I'm willing to bet will be a DLC. Friendly naval units from appropriate countries. I wouldn't mind hunting a Soviet Amphib group off the Swedish coast and getting some unexpected help from a Swedish or Norwegian submarine. Or maybe I'm battling for my life against a Soviet wolfpack and get my bacon saved by a British boat. Or maybe in a random encounter, the contact I've detected ends up being a French or German or USN sub, and all I have to do to exit the scenario is identify the friendly unit or nope the hell away. This would also allow for escort missions involving friendly units. I could be required to rendezvous with a friendly SAG or CVBG and provide ASW escort for the icon while it moves across the map, or I'm tasked to meet up with and defend a friendly SSBN in the North Sea. Like I said, probably a DLC, but I'll gladly shell for this one.

[thereddaikon]

Good suggestions Swordsman. Also don't forget about the Triton. That's one goofy ass SSN, I really want to play it.

I agree that ship classes should be tied to the number of boats that were actually in service at the time. When I have accounted for all of a given class then they should be gone.

Adding friendly units to the map would also be nice. Especially if they carried out their own missions as well. Seeing that aside from some P3's I'm the only NATO ship in the ocean is weird. The limitation made sense in Red Storm Rising and is even acceptable for Cold Waters while its still in dev but the world should feel and look more alive when its completed.

[GeneralGamer]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

There are 2 things that would greatly enhance my CW experience:

1. Some type of clock...either a mission clock or the actual game clock with seconds included in the 3D portion of the game.

2. The ability to add own marks to the tactical map. In DW you could do this by pressing Enter and a small cross would drop on your cursor.
This would let me mark the last known loc of a solid contact before the solution changes and my TMA officer decides to place the new solution 20k yards away.

I want to keep track of where he was instead of guessing. Makes tracking easier when the bearing line changes and I know roughly where he used to be, so I can aim a snapshot if I need to.

I like the clock idea but I can use my phone I guess. I usually run overtime with my videos. What I would really like to see is a way to stop the torpedoes from homing on targets that I want them to ignore. Sort of a click and home feature.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

1. Some type of clock...either a mission clock

Yes, we definitely need a clock. We can't even substitute our own clock or stopwatches for it because we aren't 100% sure one second in the game is equal to one of ours. We need to know the game's concept of time.

[Skyhigh]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Yes, we definitely need a clock. We can't even substitute our own clock or stopwatches for it because we aren't 100% sure one second in the game is equal to one of ours. We need to know the game's concept of time.

Also when I pause the game I don't want to pause my phone etc.

[Capt Jack Harkness]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Yes, we definitely need a clock. We can't even substitute our own clock or stopwatches for it because we aren't 100% sure one second in the game is equal to one of ours. We need to know the game's concept of time.

The in-game time doesn't seem to progress at all when in combat. Last mission I was in the time was 1100 every time I paused.

[-Pv-]

It seems reasonable the time stamp on the briefing screen is fixed as if the original briefing is an initial point in time and does not update. It also seems reasonable to me the 3D combat scenarios might be considered relatively brief enough to the designers the campaign map isn't notably affected considering it only takes a few seconds for a satellite to transition the map, and less than a minute for a navel force to travel hundreds of miles.

In my opinion, the time actually spent in combat may seem important to the statistician players, the 3D time impact on the course of the 2D campaign map seems relatively unimportant.

Conversely, the time spent in port seems to overshadow the campaign timing.
-Pv-

[Capt Jack Harkness]

Well there's something I hadn't thought of... If that clock did run in combat then theoretically the campaign map is in motion, right?

[-Pv-]

Only the devs can confirm if the time base of the combat has any affect on the time base of the campaign. My guess would be no and I cannot imagine considering the perhaps 1000/1 time base of the map, why it would be meaningful to the player or the game to do so.

Why would it matter if you defeated or lost to the enemy in a 3D scenario in 15, 30, 60 minutes or two hours when days go by in minutes in the campaign map? If the time base in 3D represented time also spent in the 2D map, the impact of an engagement hours long would be inconsequential. Forces leaving Arkhanglsk would not even make it into the White Sea before your scenario ended. Tank battles in WWII would last many hours or days and even given the increased lethal of the '80s time period, a tank battle within a sub battle time frame would only be one engagement in a decisive engagement perhaps lasting days.

Unless informed otherwise, it's my assumption the actual time spent in 3D is not counted and only the results matter.
-Pv-