Patch Suggestions (Monitored by Sonalysts)

[LuftWolf]

Option to delete saved games in game.

Yeah I'm lazy or I just haven't figured out how to do it yet.

[zma]

Okay, I just found a HUUUUUGE bug. Are you ready?

In the USNI database, the maximum speed of a freighter is listed as 32 knots! In the sim, freighters can do at most 16 knots.

The embarrassing thing is, I actually believed this and tried to put a 30-knot freighter in a mission. :P Didn't work.

Hey, it wouldn't actually be a bad idea to have a "fast freighter" in the sim, just for comic relief. I mean, imagine an OHP at flank speed, easily being overtaken by a rusty merchant! Priceless...

[Sea Demon]

I don't know how difficult this would be, but I'd like to hear the diving alarms again on 688(I) and Seawolf platforms. Since it was in SC, It should be easy to incorporate into DW the patch, right? Maybe?

Sea Demon

[Adm. Ahab]

I thought about this quite a bit and my only serious grip with DW is the lack of a dynamic campaign and the lack of single player missions and the really weak dynamic mission generator. The first is probably outside the scope of the next patch and the second is fixable by the community. Therefore I really think the third should be seriously considered and I would really like to see an improved dynamic mission generator included in a future patch. I remember the single player choices in Red Storm Rising, and would like to see something similar in DW. There are lots of different choices you could add; SS(N) vs. SS(N). Hunting a Boomer Bastion ( 1 or 2 SSBNs with SSN escort), Hunter Killer Group (wolfpack), ASW group, Carrier battle group…I could go on and on. Although some of these are more appropriate to the cold war, they are still plausible scenarios and I still think this would greatly add to the replayabilty of DW. Anyone who played RRR will probably remember the fun of these different challenges. Also the choice of what nationality you are fighting is a must and the starting distance a plus. Hope this isn’t to late to add to the list.

Thanks

[Amizaur]

Probably was mentioned, but... make AI units to properly set ceiling of their torpedos !! To prevent AI submarines and surface units from sinking friendly surface ships with weapons launched at enemy sub.
For air dropped torpedos relatively simple doctrine modification assures that, but I have no idea how to recognise if sub-launched torpedo was fired at sub or surface contact... Best would be if AI units set proper ceiling value (at least -150ft) when firing at enemy sumbarines.
To prevent human player from avoiding AI torpedos by surfacing, ceiling may be reset if TgtClass $= "SUB". But first it has to be set properly on launch...

[Sea Reaper]

I would like to see in an comming patch the following items.

1 . It would be nice to can see the submarines which are very near to the surface in the 3d window,not only would that be more realistic but it would give also even more the impression that you are commanding an submarine.

2 . In the NAV map for example I would like to have something like a small note book or something like that ,in such an book I could write than any things of interest which I may encounter during an dive.

3 .And my final wish would be,but not for the patch instead someday in the future to have an option to can play submarines like the Type 214.

I thank for your attention and keep up the good work

[MaHuJa]

AI ships share information on enemy weapons (torpedoes, missiles etc) over the datalink, but the player never gets any of this info.

(Which makes your own radars the only semireliable way of detecting missiles.)

[Amizaur]

Few new bugs were noticed. First, torpedos with speeds faster than 57kts are bugged. For speeds between 58 and 62kts the true torpedo speed is higher than database value. For 63kts and higher speeds the bug is more visible - torpedo constantly speeds up and slows down, oscillate around the max speed value, reaching mementarily much higher values. This can be observed on example of Type-40 torpedo, payload of SS-N-27 ASW.
It have assigned database max speed of 65kts, but when you look at one you'll notice that it reaches even 73kts temporarily, and then slows down to 46kts and so on. Bugged are torpedo speeds between 57 and 159kts. Slower and faster torpedos (for example 200kts Shkval) are OK, but inside this range strange things happen with speed - either it's higher than should be or changes all the time. More detailed raport with test results will come.

Second - as Luftwolf have noticed, some AI subs are simply deaf to the front. AI subs use two generic passive sonars, LF Pass Son and HF Pass Son. The second emulates sphere sonar, the first, LF Pass Son, have parameters similar to towed array (low frequency) and is looking backwards too. But... some AI subs have assigned only one sensor and ONLY LF Pass Sonar, so efectively they have only "towed" sonar with no front looking "sphere" sonar. They hear only backwards, in front they are simply deaf. Those AI subs like Han or Ohio should be checked and front looking sensors should be added (in case of Han - only front looking, it has no towed array). This is the reason that some people observed AI subs deaf. Well, currently hunting a Han class submarine in DW is like hunting rabbits - you have to be exactly in front of them...

Third thing - for many sensors, for example active sonars, there is "Affected by TgtAspect" flag in database. This makes detection range from front and rear aspects lower than for side aspect, which is maximum.
The function works by distracting some value from sonar equation based on target aspect as seen from sensor. For target seen from front aspect
max value of -10 is added to sonar equation (or to target SL). For side aspect the function is zero (SL unchanged), for 45 deg it's half of max value so -5 and so on.
Fuction works OK but the -10 value for front aspect target is IMO WAY too high. 10 makes difference between Kilo and Typhoon in active sonar, so Typhoon front aspect would be same target as Kilo side aspect. In efffect, the function works too strong. Value of -5 for front aspect target would be better and differrence in det ranges between front and side would be less drastic than is now. The value of "Affected by TgtAspect" function is coded in the game engine probably, so can't be changed by database editing.
Please consider reducing this value of this function from -10 to -5.
With current -10 value (-10 correction for target at 90 or 180deg aspect) it's not possible to construct properly working active sonar. -5 value should be fine.

P.S. One example how strong it the aspect effect currently. For FFG active sonar with sensivity set to 0 vs Kilo at depth of 75m. Detection range vs Kilo from side aspect would be about 9600m (so about 5.2nm). But when the Kilo turns and shows head-on, detection range for front aspect would drop to... 350m. From 9600 to 350. Very drastic change of detection range, by 96% !!
Now if the max value of aspect function was changed to -5, then the detection range for Kilo front-aspect would drop only to 1680m. That's a reasonable value, much better than 350m.
Even lower values of aspect function could be considered (maybe -3 or -4), but change to -5 is I think the minimum change to make it working properly.

PLEASE consider making this change. It wouldn't change max detection range at all, only make the reduction of detection range from front aspect less drastic that it's currently (over 96%).

[stormrider_sp]

Better Doctrines.

I made a simple test: I gave better sensors to a han submarine.
I started this test mission 25nm away from him, same depth, but, cavitating badly, and closing in fast. At 18nm, the Han detected me, but didn´t engaged til I was 2nm from him (It´s best torpedo choice has a range of 8nm). And I could still evade its torpedo so easily... I think its way too easy. Ps. I was driving an 688i.

[Amizaur]

Well the doctrine system is the greatest strength of the game, and have HUGE improving potential ! By improving the AI doctrines it's possible to make AI behaviour smarter and more advanced, to make smart missiles and torpedos, smart AEGIS system etc. But person with good knowledge of game mechanics and programming would be required. My doctrine changes are only little samples and are not spending even 10% of doctrines potential... :-/ But only if there were no errors in doctrine language, currently some commands simply don't work sometimes, like SetPitch command or assigning a value to variable in Init phase...

[Amizaur]

One more issue noticed in active sonars. In active sonar equation target own noise seems to be always added to target's active sonar signature, in effect targets running fast are detected on active at longer ranges than stationary. It's positive effect IMO (it could be understand as simulating doppler effect in active sonar) but it it should only appear when "Target Noise" flag is active, like in case of passive sonars. It seems that it's pernamently enabled now, because for active sonars currently this flag is off, and target noise still takes part in the equation.

[DivingWind]

OHP should roll on high seas more.If you made subs to bank, please make OHP to roll

[Deathblow]

hello,

my only patch request is to give us a tool that will allow us to edit the USNI Reference descriptions. Much of the community has tweeked the ranges, speed, and payloads of the various weapons and it would be nice if we could edit the descriptions to reflect their current configurations.

thanks,
db

[DivingWind]

AI subs can launch TASM's/TLAM's at flank speed and while making hard turns! Something only jetfighter would do...

[Casco]

hope no one has said this but oh well

I want to see harpoons for weapons on the P-3

tierd of using Mavricks