Where Cold Waters Drops the Ball

[bstanko6]

I kinda wish there was a modern subsim that was more like SH series.

Modern sims are basically scenarios where SH is an experience. In the middle of transit I can walk around my boat, and check out the night sky. I'm not just moving an avatar around the ocean.

[Rufus Shinra]

Originally Posted by bstanko6

I kinda wish there was a modern subsim that was more like SH series.

Modern sims are basically scenarios where SH is an experience. In the middle of transit I can walk around my boat, and check out the night sky. I'm not just moving an avatar around the ocean.

Yep. Silent Hunter is one hell of a good moment.

[SaltiDawg]

Originally Posted by Julhelm

...

During the Cold War the homing torpedoes were considered to have such low PK that standard doctrine was to use a nuclear tipped depth bomb. ...

Obviously we are talking simulated doctrine here, but this is not the doctrine that we used during the Cold War. If we had simply "plopped" missiles and nuclear torps out there and FINEX-ed the excercise, this would not have provided any real world training for a NON-NUCLEAR escalation into wartime.


We always did ops using exercise non-nuclear weapons.

[Julhelm]

That makes perfect sense actually. However, I from what I've read, both sides thought they could wage a limited nuclear war at sea without escalating the overall conflict, to a greater extent than with land-based tactical nukes. What are your thoughts on this?

[SaltiDawg]

Just my personal opinion - at the time a lowly Lieutenant - but it was my belief that if either we or the Soviets starting using nuclear weapons that the ICBMs would have to be employed and my wife and family were home at one of the ground zeros.


That's a weighty burden, but it is one that anyone in those positions needed to look at and accept. Again, in my opinion.


It is a lot easier to shoot an exercise weapon at a target than to accept the notion that you just just killed 100 fellow Submariners - whatever their nationality.


When Kursk was lost, I was saddened for a significant period of time and indeed contributed to a Memorial. In my readings of WWII in the pacific there was an immediate gladness followed by a sense of remorse following the sinking of an enemy Submarine.

[nikimcbee]

Have you played it recently GR? I hadn't played it since it came out a year ago. I love the changes they made, I find it much more playable now. I had the same thought as you, plus I found the keyboard controls awkward, but with the new China campaign, I totally see the improvement to playability.

[Delgard]

SaltiDawg,
PRP required a strong set of morals, expressed by values. Teamwork in most cases was not due to the workload, but to not be alone in such a difficult situation. Focus on the exact moment and have faith. Faith relieves us of the burden.

[Geoff then]

Now, I have come across this detection issue quite a few times.


And I guess I am not the only one.
I get a sonar contact and order "close to 25kyards"
But when the action starts, the whole convoi of ships is about 10kyards away, and I am already in their active sonar range. And even before i could order anything, they already fired at me. This should not happen. I mean it is a fast closing surface group, not some silent-running submarine.
And sadly this occurs quite often. Mind you, I wasnt approaching fast, I was on "right-click mode" and when the sonar contact screen popped, I was at 5 knots.
So, what is this about?

[AllQuiet]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

Its a consistency issue with the AI.....
i did nothing differently than i did in the first run. so what gives?

why is it that in two virtually identical engagements, the enemy AI is flawless and super-saturates my area with torpedoes and depth charges, and in the next i take out their entire fleet without so much as a glance in my direction?....

I wish to ask what the environment conditions were....and if you were running the oem JunksOParade or a modded mission. Check and see if your Junks mission file substitutes fixed weather conditions with random conditions. I feel certain the ducts and thermals varied, and wish to ask how you used the ducts/layers when you engaged/launched your attack.....

The modded files I installed shows that the author edited out most of the helo and airplane occurrences...but the campaigns still offer those threats.

I'm stumped on a simple matter where I construct a mission to include a Moskva, I have to also select whether or not I want a helo or airplane included in the event. I wish the developers would construct the coding that anytime a Moskva is part of an engagement, there is automatically helos in the area searching once an attack or a radio signal has been discovered.

[DicheBach]

I agree with OP, and this is with latest (unmodded) version of the game.

Some comments I made on the games Steam community discussion in this thread:
https://steamcommunity.com/app/54121...0934258244701/

I haven't played the game enough to critique it in earnest, and it is a wonderful game. But there are a few things about it, as a brand new player which rub me the wrong way . . . only one time compression value in the combat maps is one of those.

Long story short . . . I had a random encounter on my way to a mission and there were about three Soviet ships off the coast of Norway. Kited and killed a Foxtrot and the icons for a couple of trawlers were still lingering, though they were not "contacts." So I set off to bag those two. Probably 60k yards or more away to get to one of them, then back another long distance (probably 80 to 90k) in the opposite direction to the other one. With my LA running at 33 knots, and time compression on the minutes were just dragging by. I literally, got up, fixed my dogs dinner brought it to them, went to the bathroom, washed my hands, grabbed a coke, came back and I STILL had like 30,000 yards to go to get to the lingering trawler marker.

SH4 has like . . . I dunno 20 time compression settings and that was SO wonderful for that game.

I'm not crazy about the highly "episodic" nature of the game, a more sand-box campaign would tickle my fancy more.

If you guys never played Battle of Britain II: Wings of Victory, you should check it out. http://www.matrixgames.com/products/...ngs.of.Victory

Mainly just to see the neat way it integrated a strategic level game and a tactical combat game all into one. Maybe something to think about for Cold Waters II

Another thing that annoys me: encounters generally seem to occur at VERY close range, and the capacity to shape how an engagement begins using the campaign map interface seems rather limited.

To which a user called "Clivman" said: "For your last point- Use "Close To" to determine the range of ship engagement. Submarine engagement will always occur at short range because that's when you can detect them."

And I said:

"Submarine engagement will always occur at short range because that's when you can detect them."

That doesn't really make sense to me: The ships have a radar mast with 60,000 yd range, an ESM mast with effectively unlimited range, and depending on the scenario potentially myriad forms of supporting intelligence and detection assets which would ostensibly be available (satellites, aircraft, other ships, coastal positions). Visual detection obviously depends largely on atmospheric conditions, but could be as large as 10 or 12 nautical miles IIRC?

If I am crusing at 9 knots with my ESM mast up, while traversing on the campaign map, then ostensibly I should be able to detect enemies running active radar at 60,000+ yards.

With my active radar then ~60,000 yards . . .

Its like the game assumes the skipper is incompetent on the campaign map and is cruising either too fast to use sensors or is unable/unwilling to make use of his sensors while en route. Not to mention the complete absence of any potential to engage with other allied assets (sats, aircraft, other ships, etc.). Add to this that crew is not modeled at all, and the player character has no in-game characteristics that can develop as the game progresses and I think KillerFish have missed an enormous golden opportunity to enhance the games appeal and replayability to including a few common "RPG-like" and strategic elements into the campaign.

This is what I mean when I say I'm not crazy about the "episodic" nature of the game. The Campaign is effectively a string of "Scenarios" in which the "between episodes" practices of the skipper, as well as the practices while traversing to mission locations are largely irrelevant. Add to this that the campaign map is not zoomable, time is not compressable, the controls are a bit obscure, and options for how to prepare and situate your sub for an encounter are seemingly quite limited (or at best, obscure): These are all in my opinions the most egregious deficiencies in the game, which is not meant to be an "attack," because as I've already said the game is wonderful.

Room for improvement is all I'm saying, and excellent areas to explore for Part Deux.

A lot of this stuff is lightweight when it comes to the logic to run it and the assets to implement it, though granted, I imagine it can add a lot of complexity to Q&A.

It seems to me that the game's design focus is on engagements, not on the operational level where the campaign should be. A related issue is that, the tools on the campaign interface for the user to determine engagement ranges are, at best obscure. Even worse, 25,000 yards is apparently the largest range possible, and often even when 25,000 yards is chosen the actual ranges are less.

Someone said "torpedo dodging simulator" and sadly, with my current experience with the game, that seems pretty accurate.

[Julhelm]

60.000 yards is the maximum practical range to the horizon, but you have to remember that the submarines' radar and ESM reciever are mounted on small masts that protrude only a few feet above the surface of the water, thus drastically reducing the range at which detections can be made. If you surface the sub and raise the masts, you should be able to detect enemies out to max range, but submarines do not transit on the surface.

[CDR DPH]

Originally Posted by DicheBach

It seems to me that the game's design focus is on engagements,

Yep, that's the focus in the Cold Waters game. The developers deliberately chose not to include much of the logistical work of transiting from place to place, setting up intercept positions or dealing with the time constraints of doing all the between missions stuff.

If you want a true sub simulator that incorporates those aspects of attack sub life, you'll need to find them elsewhere.

In this game, your targets are relatively close, go find them, identify them, then kill them and repeat.

Lamenting on the game aspects that don't match other game titles is kind of pointless as CW was never intended to duplicate a "real life" sub experience.

CW is a quick paced underwater first person shooter.

[DicheBach]

Originally Posted by CDR DPH

Yep, that's the focus in the Cold Waters game. The developers deliberately chose not to include much of the logistical work of transiting from place to place, setting up intercept positions or dealing with the time constraints of doing all the between missions stuff.

If you want a true sub simulator that incorporates those aspects of attack sub life, you'll need to find them elsewhere.

In this game, your targets are relatively close, go find them, identify them, then kill them and repeat.

Lamenting on the game aspects that don't match other game titles is kind of pointless as CW was never intended to duplicate a "real life" sub experience.

CW is a quick paced underwater first person shooter.

Oh I believe you, and it does seem clear that it is what the developers intended.

However, I disagree with you that it is "pointless," because if users do not express their lack of satisfaction with this sort of game design then they have no one to blame but themselves when they get more of it.

Certainly nothing wrong whatsoever with an "underwater first person shooter." But a game with all the capabilities to be that AND so much more, and which fails to provide both the former and the latter in two or more separate play modes is a shame IMO.

Like I said, seems a real missed golden opportunity. I for one will get about half or one third the use time out of the game because to me, (a) the params that control how the engagements unfold are stupid simply BECAUSE how an engagement initiates and unfolds SHOULD depend on the "in-between" engagement process; (b) the tools provided to make the stupidity of the engagements less unsavory are lacking (lack of moddability, one time compression setting).

[DicheBach]

Originally Posted by Julhelm

60.000 yards is the maximum practical range to the horizon, but you have to remember that the submarines' radar and ESM reciever are mounted on small masts that protrude only a few feet above the surface of the water, thus drastically reducing the range at which detections can be made. If you surface the sub and raise the masts, you should be able to detect enemies out to max range, but submarines do not transit on the surface.

Is 25,000 yards the maximum range at which the ESM, radar masts of the ships in the game realistically could make contacts? If so, my bad for assuming 60,000 was tenable. Probably should've brushed up on my geodesics before I spouted off about that

Hmm
this wiki page on "horizon" is saying that the horizon from an eye view 1.7m above sea level is 5km!? 5468 yards. I did not realize it was that close.

So I guess the fact that my SH4 crews routinely spot enemy contacts out to ~6 or (if memory serves) even 8 nautical miles (~16,000 yd) under ideal atmospheric conditions reflects the fact that those contacts have masts sticking up 10s of meters above sea level.

[Julhelm]

More likely your SH lookouts are spotting the smoke.