Realism mod (discussion)

[Julhelm]

Fast Attack has near perfect gameplay if you're a hardcore sub nut passionate about the subject matter. If you're not, the interface is too cumbersome and the combat too abstract, and that's why it ultimately failed commercially. It's still better than any Sonalysts sim, but DW ultimately failed to perform as well which is why noone has touched nuclear subs in over a decade.

I would love to do Fast Attack w/ dynamic campaign and SH5-like 3D models, but a self-funded 2-man studio like ours just don't have the economic resources or the manpower to pull that off from scratch. We have to do the best with what we have. It's that simple.

[stormrider_sp]

Originally Posted by Julhelm

Fast Attack has near perfect gameplay if you're a hardcore sub nut passionate about the subject matter. If you're not, the interface is too cumbersome and the combat too abstract, and that's why it ultimately failed commercially. It's still better than any Sonalysts sim, but DW ultimately failed to perform as well which is why noone has touched nuclear subs in over a decade.

I would love to do Fast Attack w/ dynamic campaign and SH5-like 3D models, but a self-funded 2-man studio like ours just don't have the economic resources or the manpower to pull that off from scratch. We have to do the best with what we have. It's that simple.

What do you mean Sonalysts failed to perform, what are you talking about? We had more than 10 full sub squadrons in our Seawolves fleet back in the days. One could find multiplayer anytime of the day as he wished. Honestly, I don't recall any community as alive as Seawolves during her prime years... What sonalysts failed to do was to bring its simulator up to date, in line with new gaming technologies, but even then, 20 years after, under the hood its still far superior to CW. Even commercially, if that's your point, I doubt that there would even had been follow ups like Fleet Command, SC and DW if it wasnt for 688i HK's commercial sucess alone.

I wouldn't mind having a Fast Attack 2 sim without any fancy dynamic campaing. A moddable modern fast attack, with 3d interiors, proper physics and crew management with good map and scenario editor and I'd be once again a happy subsimmer for at least a another decade.

Originally Posted by stormrider_sp

.

I wouldn't mind having a Fast Attack 2 sim without any fancy dynamic campaing. A moddable modern fast attack, with 3d interiors, proper physics and crew management with good map and scenario editor and I'd be once again a happy subsimmer for at least a another decade.

That.
Also, the "dynamic campaign" of cw doesn't really cut it for me. I can't say why but there's just something missing and while it may be dynamic, it still is the same again and again.

Meanwhile I re-played the RSR campaign for dangerous waters multiple times.

[Julhelm]

Originally Posted by stormrider_sp

What do you mean Sonalysts failed to perform, what are you talking about? We had more than 10 full sub squadrons in our Seawolves fleet back in the days. One could find multiplayer anytime of the day as he wished. Honestly, I don't recall any community as alive as Seawolves during her prime years... What sonalysts failed to do was to bring its simulator up to date, in line with new gaming technologies, but even then, 20 years after, under the hood its still far superior to CW. Even commercially, if that's your point, I doubt that there would even had been follow ups like Fleet Command, SC and DW if it wasnt for 688i HK's commercial sucess alone.

I wouldn't mind having a Fast Attack 2 sim without any fancy dynamic campaing. A moddable modern fast attack, with 3d interiors, proper physics and crew management with good map and scenario editor and I'd be once again a happy subsimmer for at least a another decade.

Commercially, of course. The reason Sonalysts haven't made any new sims is because DW failed to meet sales expectations. Had it been a profitable venture, they would still be here. But they have not made a new game in over 10 years.

You sound like you would rather be playing DW, so why are you here complaining about our game when we've always been up front with the fact it's not like DW, nor was it ever intended to be. If DW is what you want to play...

...play DW.

Originally Posted by Julhelm

You sound like you would rather be playing DW, so why are you here complaining about our game when we've always been up front with the fact it's not like DW, nor was it ever intended to be. If DW is what you want to play...

...play DW.

Well, I might be off, but I don't think he expected it to be DW at all, that much is clear from his previews posts. However, washing away any critic with "go play DW", is not leading anywhere either.

CW has a lot of potential, and the first patch already fixed a lot of leaks it had, while the beta patch 1.02 reads promising as well.
The upcoming new GUI and crew sounds will also make a big difference (for me!) and if you continue to develop this title for a while, as you do now, I am quite content that CW can be come what many more hardcore simmers hoped for, as of now, it absolutely is not what I'd call a "simulation"
(subjective term anyways, sure).

[stormrider_sp]

Originally Posted by Julhelm

Commercially, of course. The reason Sonalysts haven't made any new sims is because DW failed to meet sales expectations. Had it been a profitable venture, they would still be here. But they have not made a new game in over 10 years.

You sound like you would rather be playing DW, so why are you here complaining about our game when we've always been up front with the fact it's not like DW, nor was it ever intended to be. If DW is what you want to play...

...play DW.

You know, you keep pushing this "not-DW-stance", but since CW was at least meant to be a subsim, as a subsim it shall be judged.


Title: Cold Waters
Genre: Indie, Simulation, Strategy
Developer: Killerfish Games
Publisher: Killerfish Games
Release Date: 5 Jun, 2017

Just met two Victors in campaign, a Victor I and III.
Ambushed them, 5kts, stopped engines as soon as I was in-game.

Seconds later, the pinging started.
Oh hello there!
Fired tube 1 down the bearing I just received from the ping.
Kill.
No serious evasive actions besides altering course slightly, and cavitating for a brief moment, before slowing down again, not moving out of the torpedoes arc at all.

The Victor III started pinging me after the engagement with the Victor I was over. Until then, it stayed silent - and undetected!

Same story.
Ping received -> Mk48 send.
Hit and heavily damaged, forced it to surface (a nice detail!).

But then the usual lackluster AI hilarity ensued.
It drove around aimlessly and soon started to ping again and even cavitate,
giving me a 95% solution.
Fish away -> kill.


Number of enemy torpedoes fired: 0

And that, I see a lot.

[Julhelm]

So Nippelspanner:

It appears you have a pretty good idea of what tactics the enemy subs should use. If you can provide these tactics to us, we can incorporate them into the AI. That'd go a long way towards getting more believable behavior out of them.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Assumptions how I play the game don't help here, especially if they are wrong.

I am not saying how you play the game, necessarily. My main point there is that there are three ways you start tactical combat, and in TWO of them you are very likely to have made some noise shortly prior to Game Start. In the third, you probably set your ambush in a certain place for a reason. So in all THREE scenarios the enemy actually has some reason to at least suspect you are there.

Whenever possible, wich is most of the time due to rather good recon everywhere, I ambush them, which sets your speed to 5kts. And no, I see no sign that the enemy detected me before or after pinging, so your assumption Ithat they ping because I was detected doesn't work out here.

I said the enemy suspected you are there, so they are doing active sonar searches. As you mention, active sonar searches aren't a panacea, so they don't always detect you, which is realistic.

Besides, while it is possible to set ambushes if they nicely tell you the guys are sending Commando Teams to Trondheim, if you are told that they are going to a larger area say the "Norwegian Sea", it is harder to say exactly which patch of Norwegian Sea it'll be, so you'll have to move. And since you never know exactly when they'll decide to tell you your mission forecloses, there's always the time pressure.

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Hope the US commander has a bad day, hope the odds are somehow in my favor?
I sure will not light a friggin emergency flare in the middle of the night hoping that I might coincidentally find something - while everything else dozens of miles away definitely now have found me.

In other words, you don't really have a plan.

Seriously, if they don't do active sonar searches, the game is reduced to a relatively simple detection/counter-detection game, which you must win because you have the better sonar and quieter ship. All you have to do is keep the passive sonar value at below 0 which you usually have the acoustic advantage to do. It is that active sonar component, which often covers that part you'll prefer to close to get off better shots, that creates the uncertainty.

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Just met two Victors in campaign, a Victor I and III.
Ambushed them, 5kts, stopped engines as soon as I was in-game.

Frankly, I remember my enemies being a bit smarter than this, but anyway, if they did not ping, the result would have been the same. Sooner or later you will simply pick them up on the passive sonar, and your tactic seems to basically consist of firing Launch-on-Bearing snapshots and there's no reason to believe they would have been less accurate.

Originally Posted by Julhelm

So Nippelspanner:

It appears you have a pretty good idea of what tactics the enemy subs should use. If you can provide these tactics to us, we can incorporate them into the AI. That'd go a long way towards getting more believable behavior out of them.

I didn't say that.
All I said is that I doubt the "let's ping away all day long because our sensors suck" doctrine is/was actually a thing, as it contradicts everything submarine-warfare.
So far I haven't seen any source for this, and that the torpedo evasion of the AI is just really lackluster - together with a few other things. In no way did I say or imply I am some master tactician, did I?

Torpedo evasion really is the biggest problem right now, pinging doctrine or not aside (makes no difference in combat anyways it seems)

I just played a round with the latest beta patch and finally had a tough fight against two Sierras, who really drove my boat to its limits. Did you do something between 1.01 and 1.02 in that regard, or was it random?
Because this was the first sub vs sub fight that actually felt like, well, a fight... up to the point where one Sierra decided to run straight at my incoming torpedo...

"combat tactics Dr. Ryan, duh!"

Anyways, before that, I never had any problems fighting subs, it was actually easier than any surface engagements, no matter if fighting old Foxtrots or Victor III, it never was a challenge.

So, enemy subs should be able to figure out if they can outrun a torpedo, or need to evade horizontally, moving out of its arc in addition of using counter-measures smarter (basically always the case in CW due to short distance engagements).
That would help a lot already.
I don't know what they're doing at the moment, but it just isn't working at all.