1.04 reluctance?

[LuftWolf]

Thanks for the diplomatic reply.

Everyone here needs to understand that when I talk about DW, I talk solely about MODDED DW, which is, of course, my (totally biased) preference.

In the context of Modded DW, the DW 1.04 patch is *everything* we could have hoped for, mostly because the issues that it raises for stock players are simply non-issues in modded DW.

For those playing non-modded DW in particular settings such as fleets, I understand why 1.04 would cause such consternation because of the way it shifts the balance of the game, perhaps quite unexpectedly for some players.

In this light, I think it's best for us to be clear when we discuss these things, and to stay positive.

Although, to be fair, don't be surprised when you come to SubSim and jump ugly with SubSim members about SubSim projects! One of the features of the DW community has been malevolent fractionalization, and everyone has their own way to play and of course everyone's way is the best and the right way.

You all can read in the first few lines of my readme why I'm doing this, to make DW more the way I want it to be. I've never hid that fact, so don't be surprised when it reflects OUR biases and opinions.

That's the great thing about DWedit... don't like something? Change it in the database and tell the fleet this is what to use now.

So my advice to you in the SSN, is to do some research into a few things that can help balance the game for your players, and then make a Database for you fleet, and then update to 1.04 and use those. Just some advice, let me know if you want some specific suggestions about what you can do to address the issue as I've got some ideas.

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

I ususally don't like to repeat myself, but this is worth saying a second time.

The Akula-II could run away from an ADCAP from "12.5nm" in DW 1.03. In fact, it can run away from an ADCAP fired as close as 9.82 nm. And I can prove it:

The ADCAP runs 27nm at 55kts. That gives you a runtime of 29.45 minutes.
In 29.45 minutes, an Akula-II can run 17.18nm at its top speed of 35kts. So, to prevent the Akula from being able to run away, you need him to be at least 17.18nm from the maximum range of the ADCAP: 27nm-17.18nm= 9.82nm.

So no-escape range in 1.03 is 9.82nm.
In 1.04, it's 7.74nm. (same method, different runtime)

The sky isn't exactly falling.

And it applies to ALL torpedoes, not just the ADCAP. I've already gotten away from some air-dropped torps that would have killed me for sure in 1.03...but in 1.04 they didn't have the legs to catch up.

[Fearless]

I'm really flabbergasted at what I'm reading here. I'm still trying to figure out why things are changed except for the obvious one being the surfaced moving sub stability being erratic in v1.03. V1.04 should have really fixed that problem alone.

The logic that ADM Sfduke NCO-SSN presented is quite plausable. The Modders have their own opinion but hey, modding stuff is really for personal preference isn't it? Surely the changes made aren't based on real life accurate data retrieved from source documents that no doubt wouldn't be available anyway? Or am I barking up the wrong tree here!!:hmm:

[LuftWolf]

The Modders have their own opinion but hey, modding stuff is really for personal preference isn't it?

Absolutely. No one would do something for free that they didn't like.

Surely the changes made aren't based on real life accurate data retrieved from source documents that no doubt wouldn't be available anyway?

I can guarantee you that LWAMI is significantly more 1) bug free, and 2) accurate to real-world data than the stock database.

There are many many examples of this, some of which Molon Labe listed above.

Another one I can add: do you really believe that all torpedoes have the exact same seeker parameters? or do you think the ADCAP has greater seeker capability than say a torpedoes manufactured in the 1970's or lightweight torpedoes?

Well, in the stock game, all torpedoes use the exact same seeker parameters... which was reason alone back in 2005 for many old school SCX players to refuse to play DW until some kind of mod fixed the issue, not to mention the fantasy 65cm and 53cm torpedoes and the absence of the TB-23.

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

Another one I can add: do you really believe that all torpedoes have the exact same seeker parameters? or do you think the ADCAP has greater seeker capability than say a torpedoes manufacted in the 1970's or lightweight torpedoes?

Well, in the stock game, all torpedoes use the exact same seeker parameters... which was reason alone back in 2005 for many old school SCX players to refuse to play DW until some kind of mod fixed the issue, not to mention the fantasy 65cm and 53cm torpedoes and the absence of the TB-23.

Cheers,
David

You know, I thought of that one right after I left to read a case, and I thought about editing the post... but I didn't. You got me again!

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by Fearless

I'm really flabbergasted at what I'm reading here. I'm still trying to figure out why things are changed except for the obvious one being the surfaced moving sub stability being erratic in v1.03. V1.04 should have really fixed that problem alone.

1.04 made torpedo ranges variable with torpedo speed because that's the way torpedoes work in real life. When DW first came out, the fact that they had constant range was among the first major gripes. They actually tried to fix it in a previous patch but ended up screwing it up worse than it had been! 1.04 is the first version of DW that models the relationship between torpedo speed and range in a plausible fashion.

1.04 also allows the player to determine whether or not (or how often) torpedoes explode on decoys and whether or not (or how often) weapons home on dead platforms. Prior to 1.04, CMs always exploded on decoys and never home on dead platforms. In chosing for it to work this way, SCS was trading realism for playability--they wanted to make the game easier for new players so that they could reach a larger audience (you know, all that griping about how "steep" the learning curve is and such). Of course, the hardcore crowd was not pleased. The community was pretty much evenly divided on whether or not this should be changed back to how it was in Sub Command (not exploding, and homing), so SCS compromised with both camps and gave us the power to decide how we'd prefer to play.

I hope that answers the "why" part.

The logic that ADM Sfduke NCO-SSN presented is quite plausable. The Modders have their own opinion but hey, modding stuff is really for personal preference isn't it? Surely the changes made aren't based on real life accurate data retrieved from source documents that no doubt wouldn't be available anyway? Or am I barking up the wrong tree here!!:hmm:

Duke is talking about 1.04 (specifically, that torpedo range varies with speed and that the host has the option of setting torps to explode on decoys and/or home on dead platforms). He briefly mentions mods, but said nothing substantial about them.

The role of modders in all this is that the changes in balance caused by the fact that torpedo ranges are now variable, can be and are addressed by LW/Ami.

[Fearless]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

1.04 made torpedo ranges variable with torpedo speed because that's the way torpedoes work in real life. When DW first came out, the fact that they had constant range was among the first major gripes. They actually tried to fix it in a previous patch but ended up screwing it up worse than it had been! 1.04 is the first version of DW that models the relationship between torpedo speed and range in a plausible fashion.

1.04 also allows the player to determine whether or not (or how often) torpedoes explode on decoys and whether or not (or how often) weapons home on dead platforms. Prior to 1.04, CMs always exploded on decoys and never home on dead platforms. In chosing for it to work this way, SCS was trading realism for playability--they wanted to make the game easier for new players so that they could reach a larger audience (you know, all that griping about how "steep" the learning curve is and such). Of course, the hardcore crowd was not pleased. The community was pretty much evenly divided on whether or not this should be changed back to how it was in Sub Command (not exploding, and homing), so SCS compromised with both camps and gave us the power to decide how we'd prefer to play.

I hope that answers the "why" part.

Duke is talking about 1.04 (specifically, that torpedo range varies with speed and that the host has the option of setting torps to explode on decoys and/or home on dead platforms). He briefly mentions mods, but said nothing substantial about them.

The role of modders in all this is that the changes in balance caused by the fact that torpedo ranges are now variable, can be and are addressed by LW/Ami.

Thanks for the great responses. Can you clarify this for me:

1. Who determines what the correct speed/range settings should be considering that environmental factors (even though not accurately modelled) play a great deal in the efficiency of I suppose any weapon for that matter.

2. Since when should a player have control of whether a torpedo explodes on CMs or dead platforms? To me that's not realism at all :hmm: Now if that was a variable that was randomly controlled when a game was lauched, that would make it perhaps more realistic because of the uncertainty could occur.

Sorry about the rand but if realism is the issue here then what ever is modded, changed, added or varied for that matter is just for the benefit of that person who does the changes as what he or she perceives to be realistic. That doesn't mean that everyone is of that same opinion.

Can anyone tell me what realism is within a simulated environment?

[LuftWolf]

At the core of Dangerous Waters is a military grade simulation tool that responds (for the most part) intelligently to a wide variety of inputs and manipulation.

The whole point of DW is that it is DESIGNED to be manipulated in all manner of ways.

The "game" you purchased is merely one set of files that barely breaks the surface of unlocking the capability of the core engine.

People become focused on particular numbers and data, but when values are put into the simulation, they become meaningless in any absolute sense. What's much more important is how the simulation acts as a whole when all the values are considered together, from the perspective of their performance in the simulation.

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by Fearless

Thanks for the great responses. Can you clarify this for me:

1. Who determines what the correct speed/range settings should be considering that environmental factors (even though not accurately modelled) play a great deal in the efficiency of I suppose any weapon for that matter.

Well, for the time being, SCS does. If you're asking for a critique of what they've done, then it depends just how deep you want to go. The relationship now accounts for both the efficiency of the propellant and the efficiency of the propeller. That's more accurate than we were even asking for, since I don't think the community as a whole even had prop efficiency in mind. As for knowing the actual coefficients...we pretty much have to rely on what SCS gives us up until the point that publicly available information contradicts it. So it might be Jane's, FAS, or GlobalSecurity, etc. that ultimately provide the data from which the correct relationship is determined.

As for environmental factors, the LW/Ami 4 project involved ranges that are variable for depth for chemical-fueled torpedoes, as the thrust they generate depends on the pressure differential between the fuel and the outside. Smart money says this added layer of complexity will work its way into a mod for 1.04 at some point in the future.

2. Since when should a player have control of whether a torpedo explodes on CMs or dead platforms? To me that's not realism at all :hmm: Now if that was a variable that was randomly controlled when a game was lauched, that would make it perhaps more realistic because of the uncertainty could occur.

I think you might have misunderstood me. The player doesn't get to choose as he's being shot at. It's a game setting controlled by the host. All players in that game session are playing by the same "rules."

Part of the CM debate was actually about whether or not people thought it was realistic...but so little is known about the technology that there is no authoritative answer available to the public. It makes sense to leave it up to the players since no one is going to win the argument unless something gets declassified. Instead of picking someone to win and someone to lose, SCS let everyone win. That's commendable.

[Fearless]

I think you might have misunderstood me. The player doesn't get to choose as he's being shot at. It's a game setting controlled by the host. All players in that game session are playing by the same "rules."

Thanks for the clarification. I don't believe I misunderstood though, unless the host wasn't a player and didn't reveal the settings. That's why the game should be randomly generating variables itself. This would solve many misconceptions to what's fair or not.

Instead of picking someone to win and someone to lose, SCS let everyone win. That's commendable.

Ah!! but not everyone is a winner by any means. Irrespective of what's been provided whether it being stock or a modded version, it's still human intuition and skill through learning that decides the outcome at the end of the day