Destroyer Command 2/Surface Sim Addon [Merged]

[looney]

I think you will be bored to hell doing convoy duty... specially with a wolfpack in the area...

BOOOOM merchant down. huh... what... where... a that Uboat must be around there, race to the presumed firing point of the Uboat drop a series of DC... wait. Nope nothin.. race back to convoy.. BOOM 2nd merchant other side of convoy down.

Rinse repeat, in xx mins several merchants down. no clue how many Uboats and where they are. Rescue the merchant crews in the water. and race back to the convoy. Prey the uboat lost sight of the convoy else it's gonna be a long trip to home. That was life of many DD's during the early part of war. Later in war they simply didn't see a sub at all.

Hunter killer might be more fun. But even then the HK group needed to find a sub 1st..

I think best fun to be had, as a game is pacific theatre DD's participating in large scale surface warfare.

But I rather have a good Schnellboot or MTB (torpedo) or MGB (gunboat variant) addon/game. Then you could join in an attack on german shipping in the channel... close to home

[Akula4745]

Just gimmie some AI destroyer escorts for my Admiral Scheer... then I'll be a happy skipper.

[DES_SNIPER]

Here is a list of things I would like in a DC2:

If focused in the Atlantic, would allow you to play as Royal Navy, or Royal Canadian Navy or US Navy.

More realistic AA guns. In DC1 you started the war with 20mm Orleikons and 40mm Bofors. Alot of ships were just recently fitted with these guns. Most ships, especially the old flush deckers, started with .50's and 1.1 Chicago Piano's. If allowed to play as RN, it would be nice to start with quad .303's and 2pounder pom-pom's. If the game has an "what If" the 3" 50 cal duals would be a great addition since these were planned to replace the bofors.

AA directors for later in the war. During the War the USN developed and introduced optical and later radar guided control for the 40mm.

VVT proximity fuses as introduced.

ASW weapons. DC1 used just depth charges, Pretty sure they were just the ash cans. How about the quick sinking DC's? Hedgehog (both trainable and fixed), mouse trap, and "what if" weapon alpha (program started in '44 to be used against XXI u-boats), and MK27 cutie as a "what if" since the USN did test the use of the mk27 from surface ships (pretty sure with safety measure in place to prevent backtracking the lauching ship). If RN, the Squid or Limbo ASW.

Mine laying and clearing would be a nice mission or two, as well as landing support with more targeting options other than bunkers repeatedly. E-boats to play a large treat during the Normandy landings as well.

The use of Foxer, and later fanfare for use against German homing torpedos.

[Apocal]

Originally Posted by Dargo

You mean this from Von Spike:

Determining depth by SONAR

This method requires practice on the part of the destroyer Capt. In order to become comfortable with the procedure. However it is the only method that is available!
It is important to keep some things in mind when attempting to determine the depth of a U-Boat using your sonar, the most important of these is that the SONAR measures distance. The height of the “ping” being displayed is a measure of signal quality only, a smaller spike means that the signal being returned to the SONAR unit is of lesser quality, not that the U-Boat is deeper or shallower.
The physics of the SONAR are such that a “cone” of sound is projected from the sound head at a predetermined angle for each “ping”, and then the SONAR listens for an echo of that sound impulse. If an echo is received, it is displayed on the SONAR screen as a spike wave. The method used to determine the depth of the U-Boat is to determine its distance from the destroyer when it passes beneath the cone of sound.

The angle of the SONAR sound head is such that at 100 yards from the sound head, the bottom of the sound cone is 100 feet deep, at 200 yards the bottom is 200 feet, etc.
These measurements are probably a rough approximation of actual SONAR physics but can be used for determining depth in a battle.

Sweet, been looking for this for awhile, had trouble finding it. Do you happen to have a link to the original chart he'd put together?

Originally Posted by hellfish6

I'd like a surface warfare sim, maybe as a DLC or addon for SH5. I like subs just fine, but my real interest is in surface ships (which means, basically, I'm stuck with mods for SH3 and SH4 to get my fix).

Yeah, for the good longest the best we've had is Enigma: Rising Tide and Dangerous Waters. E:RT has it's moments but not really for me, Dangerous Waters is pretty awesome but it's modern so there is a different flavor to the tactical problems presented.

My idea would be to start it out kinda scaled - join as a lieutenant or lieutenant commander in command of a sloop or corvette, then you can 'unlock' more ships as you complete patrols and increase in rank (i.e. once you make commander you can captain a destroyer, etc). Things like number of u-boats sunk or percentage of ships in your convoy that survive would help you increase in rank/renown. Eventually maybe you can become a convoy commander and manage 4-5 escorts.

I mostly agree, although I'm more partial to the Pacific for a hypothetical DC2 since it's more a full-spectrum theater, you had ASW, you had plenty of varied surface actions, you had air attacks, you had amphibious operations and you stay relevant pretty much right up until the very end.

Of course the Atlantic and Med have most of those as well, and I suppose as long as the campaign is still dynamic, it'll be cool either way. Dynamic within context of course. You still get tasking assigned from on high, but the whole thing would play out before you. That's one thing I really disliked about Destroyer Command, the campaigns: the mission format was such a fantastic way of jarring me out of the "you are there" feeling.

Plus, why stop at destroyers? Why not let the player command stuff like cruisers, especially if it involves the USN, since I recall at least one cruiser-class, the Atlantas, had torpedoes, depth charges and sonar installed.

It does boggle my mind, though, that some people seem to think a sub sim and a surface sim are mutually exclusive. Everything you do to enhance the realism of subs can translate directly into a surface ship game.

Exactly. You build a high-fidelity sonar model, radar model, visual model, etc. and it cuts both ways and gives a more satisfying experience. Plus adversial play would be far more interesting, even if the ratio was skewed in the submariner's favor. There are, admittedly, a lot of ways for MP balance to be done real life vs. RPS and it could be a source of discontent, but really the community can probably hash that out themselves and probably leans towards RL anyway.

FWIW, I'd much rather be able to crew a destroyer than watch 3d figures load torpedoes into a tube. I spend 90% of my time in SH3 or SH4 looking at my navigation map, 5% looking through a periscope and 5% on the conning tower or deck gun. I'll watch my crew load a torpedo once or twice, say 'that's cool' and never look at it again.

Hmm not so much I agree here, people talk about caring more for gameplay than graphics, but then you see the sales figures for games with fantastic gameplay, but only middling graphics and they compare poorly to those with 'good enough' gameplay and WOW factor. Of course, they never actually say "graphics", because that's a dirty word for any true sim fan, but they do use words and phrases like "immersion" and "it feels like I'm actually there."

I see where graphics and other such eye candy plays it's own part and I appreciate it for what it does, even if I'm like you and send ninety plus percent of my time staring at a 2D map. Otherwise, I'd have to argue about the necessity for 1X time when I spend most of my time in some form of time compression to cut down on the wait.

[Dargo]

Originally Posted by Apocal

Sweet, been looking for this for awhile, had trouble finding it. Do you happen to have a link to the original chart he'd put together?

I have the doc pm me you mail addy and I send it to you

[Dargo]

My only request would be the control over several classes of Destroyer's

1. A sonar room where you have to determine the depth of the sub you want to sink
2. Depth charge room to set the explosion depth of the depth-charges
3. Radar room
4. Radio room
5. Bridge

[Dargo]

Originally Posted by DES_SNIPER

ASW weapons. DC1 used just depth charges, Pretty sure they were just the ash cans. How about the quick sinking DC's? Hedgehog (both trainable and fixed)

There where usable Hedgehog in DC1.

[ichso]

What I would like even better than another DC game would be a sim like the old DOS based Burning Steel series. Commanding a fleet of ships from any of those ship's bridge and and/or taking on a more wide ranged and tactical perspective.

Regarding Destroyer Command:
What would such a game be like: based on a dynamic campaign like in SH3/4 or mission based like SH2 ? I mean, wouldn't most destroyer patrols be deprived of spotting enemies across the Atlantic in a 'realistic' dynamic campaign ?

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by looney

I think best fun to be had, as a game is pacific theatre DD's participating in large scale surface warfare.

Yeah! I'd love to see a Destroyer Command 2 with a Guadalcanal/Tokyo Express dynamic campaign included where you could play either the US or Japanese side.

[PL_Andrev]

The problem with "dynamic campaign" is that you cannot hide yourself under surface. So you cannot swim with your BB around Japan, becouse there are thousand of enemy planes, enemy submarines or warships.

I want to play DC2 but I think that it be possible only as add-on for 'DC' single missions and multiplayer games (this same story with campaign on both Battlestations games).

Sorry.

[Apocal]

Originally Posted by ichso

Regarding Destroyer Command:
What would such a game be like: based on a dynamic campaign like in SH3/4 or mission based like SH2 ? I mean, wouldn't most destroyer patrols be deprived of spotting enemies across the Atlantic in a 'realistic' dynamic campaign ?

Depends, really, apparently there were quite a few false contacts generated and acted upon, which may be a good gameplay element to introduce. Or it could be too frustrating and/or simply repetitive to cross the Atlantic and respond to flaming datum.

Which is why I said that Pacific was probably a better idea, if only for it's depth and breadth and the fact that the flavor of the campaign was constantly shifting; from early tactical blundering to the varied actions around the Solomons, then late-war battles for survival against an increasingly desperate opponent.

Originally Posted by Torplexed

Yeah! I'd love to see a Destroyer Command 2 with a Guadalcanal/Tokyo Express dynamic campaign included where you could play either the US or Japanese side.

That would get my dollar.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Dargo

My only request would be the control over several classes of Destroyer's

I agree, but I would only want to directly control one at a time.

1. A sonar room where you have to determine the depth of the sub you want to sink

I loved that in DC, but it's not really accurate.

2. Depth charge room to set the explosion depth of the depth-charges

Same thing. I want to do that, but the captain never did.

3. Radar room

Again, a place the captain visits, but he doesn't really work there. That said, I loved going to the radar screen in SH1 (haven't played SH4 enough to get one) and wouldn't complain if I could do it in a new DC.

4. Radio room

I was a radioman, and it's a lot more likely to have an RM come to the captain than the other way around. He visited us maybe once a week. I like the way SH4 does it, with messages being 'handed to you' wherever you are.

5. Bridge

Where the captain lives.

[Apocal]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I agree, but I would only want to directly control one at a time.

I wouldn't mind something like command of a division or two of destroyers and cruisers. Playing Commodore could be cool if done right, plus in quite a few surface actions individual captains weren't making a terribly interesting number of tactical decisions. Surface warfare is a team sport even past the ship level.

I loved that in DC, but it's not really accurate.

Determing depth? Or the fact that the player has to do it manually? In the case of the first, I'm not sure if it's historically accurate or even practically possible with sonar gear of the time. For the second, I was a bit disappointed that there wasn't a crew simulated that could do this for me, obviously with a experience playing a role in how accurate his 'fix' would be.

On the other hand, you have Silent Hunter where the player is doing almost everything an entire tracking party would be doing; I understand most hardcore guys like this, but it isn't reality. Instead of calling out "Bearing - mark!" and having the periscope assistant call out the degrees or "Target speed - twenty-five knots!" and having the TDC operator repeatback the target speed setting, the player is doing all that.

So there is certainly a precedent for doing that in games/sims/whatever.

Where the captain lives.

Unfortunately, TC don't go high enough for me to stay there.