Matching depth of opposing submarines!

[Nexus7]

Originally Posted by SeaQueen

I wouldn't worry about it. If one just posted the relevant documents, I have a feeling someone would second guess them, even as they hauled the poster off to prison. It's the nature of computer geeks.

NOw there's a reason why I have doubts, and I think a good one. I once did talk with a real submarine officer of a TMA station and asked him exactly this question. answer: "of course you can!". But then going into details the answer turned into "we are quickly entering the classified zone here", and so I was denied that info.

But if it looked like deniyng you respect I am sorry, that was not meant to be. I use to consider your and Henson posts of high quality and "thrustable".

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by Nexus7

Now there's a reason why I have doubts, and I think a good one. I once did talk with a real submarine officer of a TMA station and asked him exactly this question. answer: "of course you can!". But then going into details the answer turned into "we are quickly entering the classified zone here", and so I was denied that info.

But if it looked like deniyng you respect I am sorry, that was not meant to be. I use to consider your and Henson posts of high quality and "thrustable".

It isn't that it can't be done. A good sonar guy can get a pretty good feel for all kinds of things. The point is that it really isn't necessary, and DW doesn't have the stuff in it you'd need to do it anyhow.

[sonar732]

True SeaQueen...there are a lot of tell tell signs that gives away the depth of a boat and just a few have been discussed. One thing that I've begged for is the sound of hull popping to be "hearable" thru your BB display instead of only that player who's performing the evolution.

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by sonar732

True SeaQueen...there are a lot of tell tell signs that gives away the depth of a boat and just a few have been discussed. One thing that I've begged for is the sound of hull popping to be "hearable" thru your BB display instead of only that player who's performing the evolution.

I agree. Transients like that would definitely be the coolest thing they could add to the sim right now. I want to be able to look at the that gram, or listen to my headphones and be able to tell you about every time my opponent twitches. If they did that, I also wish they could take out the TIW call and let me figure it out by looking at the grams and listening.

THAT would rock and it'd make the sonar station even more interesting.

[LuftWolf]

With wargames, as in all computer models, it is possible to be "precisely wrong," with simulations. It makes no sense to attempt to model details which the simulation lacks the tools to exploit, understand, and interact with in a realistic way, and, don't really matter anyway because if you had those tools it'd stop mattering.

I agree with this statement.

I wish I could be more explicit here, but I really can't. It gets into details that I can't talk about. It is sufficient to say, though that in this case, it is actually more accurate to have less detail in the sim.

Wargames like DW, Harpoon, Global Conflict Blue, Sub Command, Jane's Fleet Command, are always abstractions. They're computer models. You can't avoid that. DW makes you a CO, XO, OOD, AO, and FCC all rolled into one. You can't do the job of what in real life takes a small team of individuals. Why bother adding a bunch of stuff that a subordinate would take care of so you wouldn't have to worry about it? It makes no sense.

You actually end up learning less about naval warfare that way.

Well, of course, I'm simply an "amateur tinkerer" as someone said... but regarding DW, this is one interpretation.

But I always find it interesting to hear repeatly how limited DW is, from people who know not very much about it.

DW is designed so that individual missions have specific databases and doctrines assigned to it. As a professional, if you used those tools to their full extent, your ability to use the sim would be significantly improved.

[LuftWolf]

Expanding on this... I can infer this from the features provided in the database and doctrines but not implimented in the commerical version in any particular instance.

When DW is used in the government versions, I would suspect, the doctrines, database, and mission files all come in a single package, with individual missions being paired to doctrine sets and database files.

If a team of scripters and testers spent about a week or so on a single mission package, using data fit into the sim from classified sources and real world experience, they could have a simulator experience that came damn close to modelling the necessary functions in specific tactical situations with real values in play.

This of course is using the government-only DW NSE and interface.

The way we use DW, as a universal database and doctrine set for various missions, is one reason why we are limited in our sim experience, although not really enough for anyone to consider themselves deprived of a lot of minutae and waiting around.

Cheers,
David

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

The way we use DW, as a universal database and doctrine set for various missions, is one reason why we are limited in our sim experience, although not really enough for anyone to consider themselves deprived of a lot of minutae and waiting around.

You're not really as limited in DW as you sometimes say you are. There is an awful lot to be learned by playing around in DW, modded database and doctrines or not. It's a good sim. Sometimes I think people tend to worry too much about the particulars of system X or system Y.

You're in the COs chair, HELLO! People should worry about the things a CO worries about! A CO is the commanding officer, he or she COMMANDS. DW is great for that. It's about tactical decision making, not noodling around with knobs, switches and buttons. All that is just a means to an end.

But... computer gamers are techies, not officers. That's not their first instinct. They like their knobs, switches and buttons. That's what they're used to worrying about so they tend to focus on that. And besides in all fairness, COs of warships are techies on some level too. It's no accident that the even the English majors at the Naval Academy end up taking a curriculum heavy on science, engineering and math courses. You can't be fascinated by warships and not be a technophile.

Personally, I think DW strikes a great balance between the two extremes to make a fun tactical simulation. What's wrong with that?

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

Well, of course, I'm simply an "amateur tinkerer" as someone said... but regarding DW, this is one interpretation.

But I always find it interesting to hear repeatly how limited DW is, from people who know not very much about it.

There's nothing necessarily amateurish to what you do. As I've said before, we frequently run into parallel issues in professional wargames. They're frequently quite similar. I think it's fascinating to watch.

I didn't argue there that DW was limited, although sometimes it is. There's stuff that just isn't in there, for whatever reason. That's not necessarily a bad thing, though. I'm sure that if you asked everyone here what their wish list included, it'd be something different. I really like DW.

DW is designed so that individual missions have specific databases and doctrines assigned to it. As a professional, if you used those tools to their full extent, your ability to use the sim would be significantly improved.

That's neat. Being able to modify the database is absolutely essential if you were to use DW as an analysis tool. I can do that. As it stands, though, I don't really care to use DW as an analysis tool. I have better things available, anyway. For me, it's a way to go home and play, "I'm the captain," for the evening. I don't think my ability to use the sim is all that poor, either. Although, the missions I most enjoy probably require a lot less in terms of doctrine language and scripting than most people's. I'm a big fan of simplicity.