Things you like about CW, Things you don't like.

Originally Posted by Wiz33

The point is that the all the essential info you need to play the game is complete.

[Shadow]

You're not being very fair, Nippelspanner: you'll acknowledge Dangerous Waters' automatic crewmen, but Cold Waters allegedly depicts "robot-subs" just because the voiceovers haven't been implemented yet? The implementation of crewmen is functionally the same in both cases.

As for direct control, it's been a point of contention in the community but the devs are working on an alternative navigation module which will allow players to give more general, "captain-like" commands. That said, a sub commander is well capable of giving precise rudder/planes/ballast commands, and KFG originally went for that because they felt it was more immersive. I for one prefer traditional subsim controls, but have come to appreciate the value of direct ones as well: it's particularly important when evading torpedoes, for instance. We'll have both options soon enough, and for that I'm immensely grateful.

At any rate, what constitutes an "unfinished" game? Is it reasonable to call Cold Waters unfinished just because it's lacking a couple of secondary features? Theoretically, perhaps, but in this age of extensive post-release development, all games which receive content updates (and DLC) after launch could be considered unfinished even if they were released in a complete-enough state.

So what'd be a finished game, then? One which has stopped receiving updates beyond bugfixes and balancing? Is that necessarily a positive trait? And is it a negative thing to have this very playable, enjoyable subsim for which its creators intend to produce more stuff for a while yet?

Truth is KFG could call CW finished today, because it's an arbitrary decision and save for bug-freedom, the game has all the features the devs intended it to have to be reasonably called complete. But ultimately we all benefit the longer Cold Waters remains "unfinished" and with upcoming content in the pipeline.

[Drakomis]

Like:
1). I really love the visuals. I think this has been said plenty of times on here, but the visuals really make the feel of the game.
2). The unknown. Like, when I was playing Silent Hunter III, it actually felt like a WWII simulation. It had its kinks, sure, but it also felt primitive and alive. Cold Waters does the same, except you >feel< the advancement in technology, you >feel< how you utilize it.
3). The hard hunts. I tell you, I can't tell you often enough how much I missed a target because I became impatient! I had to realize I had a crew in this game, and I had to help >them< do their jobs too!
4). Ease of use. That's right, it feels easy, and that's not a bad thing! It's a probable WWIII simulation, and with it you have two eras. In both you should be able to feel how easier it is to use torps that track on their own, and harpoon missiles that fire at ships. At the same time, you should be able to feel the difficultly of it!

Dislike:
1). It does get too easy sometimes, I think. Then again, you get an ASW craft up above tracking you and you feel the troll face from the developer. So it evens out.
2). A lot of my dislikes were resolved with the recent patch, so like with the game before forcing you to continue despite damage, now it encourages and even orders you to get repairs. That said, it still doesn't account for the time spent going BACK INTO YOUR AREA OF OPS so when you get there you usually fail.
3). It doesn't have a free campaign mode. I really would like that, where it's just slugging it out.
4). THE INTRO TO EACH CAMPAIGN. MAKE IT STOP. I love Ronald Regan like the next red-blooded American, but goodness gracious!

[Wiz33]

Originally Posted by Captain Shadow

You're not being very fair, Nippelspanner: you'll acknowledge Dangerous Waters' automatic crewmen, but Cold Waters allegedly depicts "robot-subs" just because the voiceovers haven't been implemented yet? The implementation of crewmen is functionally the same in both cases.

As for direct control, it's been a point of contention in the community but the devs are working on an alternative navigation module which will allow players to give more general, "captain-like" commands. That said, a sub commander is well capable of giving precise rudder/planes/ballast commands, and KFG originally went for that because they felt it was more immersive. I for one prefer traditional subsim controls, but have come to appreciate the value of direct ones as well: it's particularly important when evading torpedoes, for instance. We'll have both options soon enough, and for that I'm immensely grateful.

At any rate, what constitutes an "unfinished" game? Is it reasonable to call Cold Waters unfinished just because it's lacking a couple of secondary features? Theoretically, perhaps, but in this age of extensive post-release development, all games which receive content updates (and DLC) after launch could be considered unfinished even if they were released in a complete-enough state.

So what'd be a finished game, then? One which has stopped receiving updates beyond bugfixes and balancing? Is that necessarily a positive trait? And is it a negative thing to have this very playable, enjoyable subsim for which its creators intend to produce more stuff for a while yet?

Truth is KFG could call CW finished today, because it's an arbitrary decision and save for bug-freedom, the game has all the features the devs intended it to have to be reasonably called complete. But ultimately we all benefit the longer Cold Waters remains "unfinished" and with upcoming content in the pipeline.

Exactly! I wouldn't have a problem if he feels that certain features should be included for the price. Afterall, everyone have the right to decide if he's getting his money's worth. But to call a fully functional game un-finished is just bull.

[Shadow]

Originally Posted by Drakomis

4). THE INTRO TO EACH CAMPAIGN. MAKE IT STOP. I love Ronald Regan like the next red-blooded American, but goodness gracious!

I agree. While nice the first time around, there should be a button or an option to skip campaign intros altogether. Especially considering you'll be playing the campaigns several times.

[jenrick]

Hit <SPACE> and it'll advance to the next one. Takes about 10 seconds if that to get out of the campaign intro.

-Jenrick

[Philipp_Thomsen]

Originally Posted by Wiz33

Too bad you're missing out on a great sub sim (a true sub commander operation sim vs a sub stations operator sim like all the SH,688,DW junk).

There's absolutely NOTHING about Cold Waters that is remotely related to a "simulator".

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Philipp_Thomsen

Just installed CW and played.
5 minutes later, uninstalled.

Reeeeeally arcade, drive around with WASD?

Yes, really teaches you to be responsible for your sub's movements, JUST LIKE REAL LIFE.

No first person camera?

Periscope view. Do you have any other specific complaints to back your assertion there is nothing that is remotely related to a simulator?

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

So far you simply bashed DW and the other titles, without giving reasonable examples, and your last sentence is nothing but delusional. What does that even mean, "none of them would have made it on a real US sub."?
At least the lingo and procedures are simulated - not like in CW, where your crew consists of mutes!

Most of the lingo is not simulated, at least not in DW. You don't get calls for, for instance, Flooding and Equalizing the Tubes, only Launching them (can't you remember yourself pushing the button two seconds ago?). You get the initial sonar bearing report, but they never tell you anything like Contact Sierra 3 is having a left bearing drift.

And as Wiz points out, the autocrew is pretty weak overall.

As for why you are steering the sub yourself. As a person who is actually against the implementation of automated steering in Cold Waters, I say it is because the manual steering better simulates the realistic level of attention a submarine captain will pay to his submarine's maneuvers.

Formally, critics are correct that a real submarine captain has a OOD and a helmsman. What they ignore is that he also has a real boat costing hundreds of millions (in 1970s dollars), 100 men, and real conditions to deal with. At any moment, his smooth ascent to periscope depth can be threatened by a mistake in the compensation calculation, wave action creating suction, subtle changes to the boat's buoyancy due to the neighboring seawater being of different salinity, mistakes by his helmsmen and or OOD, or sudden mechanical failure in his planes. Sure, the chances of these happening in any one ascent is relatively slim, but if it does and he broaches the captain will be at least disgraced and in wartime he may die. Given such severe threats, he will be paying attention.

The "formally realistic" subsim has none of these. Your sub will be 100% reliable in reaching the ordered depth. Once this gets accustomed to, subsimmers tend to find that problem-free period of time very boring and entertain themselves either by fantasizing the outside situation (3D view) or spacing out (time compression). This of course has nothing to do with real submariner mentality.

So, how do we make our lazy, complacent subsim captains care about their sub's maneuvers? By making them do it themselves. Then, threatened with real consequences they will and must care. But soon they'll be receiving automated steering, that perfect automated steering that has led to such irresponsible attitudes in the first place.

Are you, the Godfather of the naval simulation genre himself, saying that the boats in CW behave reasonable and authentic? If a Los Angeles class submarine would be that ridiculously agile, it would not even need counter-measures... what for, if you have fail-safe "knuckles" that shake off every torpedo 100% of the time in this 1:1 simulation that probably breaks OPSEC

The knuckles are not working very well for me. The noisemakers are indeed 100% effective in the sense they buy you some time, but this is balanced by the torpedoes' reattack logic, so unless you can move entirely out of the range of their seeker during their detour around your noisemaker, they tend to reacquire you and you have to spend another noisemaker, and another, and another, until the torpedo runs out of fuel.

In Dangerous Waters, the decoys effectiveness is not 100%, BUT on the other hand once you decoy them once you are basically done and your basic evasion technique is limited to Turn 120 degrees, Pop Decoy, Straddle Layer with Automatic Sub Control, pop another decoy, come back under the layer, rinse and repeat until the torpedoes are lost. Plus you don't need to bother with conserving the suckers. Overall, Cold Waters provides the more challenging and punitive experience.

Originally Posted by Wiz33

But to call a fully functional game un-finished is just bull.

It's not "bull", it is my opinion which I based on examples and facts.
You still did not deliver any argument except "DW sucks because reasons and CW is super awesome because my name is in the Harpoon credits 200 years ago!"

Come back once you do have an argument besides fallacies.

[Shadow]

Originally Posted by jenrick

Hit <SPACE> and it'll advance to the next one. Takes about 10 seconds if that to get out of the campaign intro.

-Jenrick

Yeah, there's that improvised workaround, but it'd be good UX to have a more direct option or menu setting.

Originally Posted by Philipp_Thomsen

There's absolutely NOTHING about Cold Waters that is remotely related to a "simulator".

I think this is less about true "simulator" qualities and more about CW lacking traditional subsim quirks and instead having its own, because for example, turning knobs on a specific station isn't realistically what a sub commander would do. Nor is it relying on general navigation commands 99% of the time.

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

It's not "bull", it is my opinion which I based on examples and facts.
You still did not deliver any argument except "DW sucks because reasons and CW is super awesome because my name is in the Harpoon credits 200 years ago!"

Come back once you do have an argument besides fallacies.

While Wiz was perhaps a bit rash in his dismissal of previous subsims, you're conversely putting them on a pedestal, above reproach, while simultaneously bashing CW for the slightest flaws.

Originally Posted by Captain Shadow

While Wiz was perhaps a bit rash in his dismissal of previous subsims, you're conversely putting them on a pedestal, above reproach, while simultaneously bashing CW for the slightest flaws.

"Slightest flaws"?
A subsim that claims to deliver the commanders perspective yet forces the player to drive the boat himself (from all the things it has to be that!?) and doesn't even have voices for the crew, sorry, that isn't a "slight flaw", that's a major flaw - as many pointed out on steam and here.
Personally, I consider the lack of voices a deal breaker.
I didn't even ask before release about them, because I considered them to be absolute standard.

And that's just two things.

CW has more issues.
The AI probably causing the most problems, from enemy subs that regularily ground themselves nose first, to lackluster torpedo evasion and questionable sensor-values/behavior.
Or what about the silly SEAL/TLAM missions?
Are the devs serious about these!? They are beyond ridiculous, especially the SEALs mission(s). Say "simulation" again please.

This probably will all be fixed. But I can't see into the future, so I will review what we have so far -and what we have now, is not a sub sim in my books - and that has nothing to do with DW.

Speaking of.
I don't put any Sonalysts titles on a podest, quite the opposite. DW, nor the older ones, aren't perfect - but at least they can be considered a true simulation of submarine warfare, despite some flaws, as they at least deliver a rounded experience. CW still feels like a tablet game that is very empty on a closer look.

No neutrals, no friendlies, no nothing - uh, whales, fancy!

It's a quick-action underwater shooter with some semi-authentic features to create the illusion of a simulation.
If that is the new acceptable standard for "naval simulation", the genre is dead for good indeed.

Feel free to disagree, but this is my honest opinion after multiple campaigns in CW, and years with DW and other titles.
So much for "not being fair".

[PL_Harpoon]

Whoa, this discussion is starting to heat up pretty quickly...

So, why not add something to the fire myself

While I may not agree with Nippelspanner on some of the major aspects of the game and I seem to get a lot more enjoyment out of it, in all honesty I do have to agree that the game is somewhat unfinished.

I personally don't consider crew voices essential and some times I even find direct sub controls useful ("some times" is the key phrase here) but broken missions and somewhat broken AI is in my opinion enough to call a game unfinished.

But.

That doesn't mean it's a bad game. Even in it's current state it's not unplayable. Far from it. And there's enough things simulated that calling it arcade or a shooter might be insulting to the developers. Yes, WSAD controls feel very arcady and I agree it was a bad design decision but it's not reminiscent of the whole game.
As for the bugs, I don't know why (perhaps it's the mods I'm using) but I haven't seen that many floor-hitting subs as earlier, and, if you're bothered to do so, the TLAM/insertion missions can be edited (certainly not an excuse, but at least there's a way around the issue).

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

"Slightest flaws"?
A subsim that claims to deliver the commanders perspective yet forces the player to drive the boat himself (from all the things it has to be that!?)

OK, why do you find maneuvering and only maneuvering unacceptable. And how many times did you broach, ground or otherwise lose control?

and doesn't even have voices for the crew, sorry, that isn't a "slight flaw", that's a major flaw

Again, why is the lack of a "Bitching Betty" such a problem for you? I have the same feeling about this as the steering. It actually makes you pay attention, which actually makes the net experience closer to the real thing. Think of how many times you have engaged maximum time compression in say Dangerous Waters confident that someone would nicely tell you "Oh we have a new contact" or "Torpedo in the Water", rather than actually paying attention?

CW has more issues.
The AI probably causing the most problems, from enemy subs that regularily ground themselves nose first,

The enemy subs that ground themselves are a problem, but probably it is related to the fact Cold Waters has tried to be relatively ambitious (realistic) about the depth control that makes a reliable depth control algorithm harder to program.

to lackluster torpedo evasion and

The torpedo evasion could be better, but frankly, in aggregate terms (that is, in terms of getting things to hit), it is no worse than the AI torpedo evasion in Dangerous Waters. Further, if they somehow implemented perfect torpedo evasion, all of a sudden they would be very hard to hit. Do you want to waste half your torpedoes trying to kill one sub?

questionable sensor-values/behavior.

Oh yeah, you didn't like the fact they liked to use active sonar, which made you so scared of them now you just fling BoL snapshots on their pinging bearing. If they had done what you wanted them to do, you would have been able to shoot them the way you "wanted" to, with a TMA analysis. In short, even in their flawed state, they are sufficiently threatening to make you do what you did not want to do, and you want to change their behavior so they won't be able to do that. Hmm...

Or what about the silly SEAL/TLAM missions?
Are the devs serious about these!? They are beyond ridiculous, especially the SEALs mission(s). Say "simulation" again please.

Well, I'm sure how Red Storm Rising handled its TLAM mission had something to do with it. They were apparently quite close to the shore. So close they were right next to a Grisha... I suggest you write Tom Clancy ... oh yeah, he's not with us anymore...

Besides, a TLAM mission in the middle of nowhere would be a non-mission. for such a mission, they might as well put a dot on the strategic map you navigate to, then you just click "Fire TLAMs" and it is done.

No neutrals, no friendlies, no nothing - uh, whales, fancy!

Why would there be neutrals that just happen to be in your area when there is a frigging war going on? And the friendlies have been cleared so you can attack freely.

[Shadow]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

"Slightest flaws"?
A subsim that claims to deliver the commanders perspective yet forces the player to drive the boat himself (from all the things it has to be that!?) and doesn't even have voices for the crew, sorry, that isn't a "slight flaw", that's a major flaw - as many pointed out on steam and here.
Personally, I consider the lack of voices a deal breaker.
I didn't even ask before release about them, because I considered them to be absolute standard.

And that's just two things.

CW has more issues.
The AI probably causing the most problems, from enemy subs that regularily ground themselves nose first, to lackluster torpedo evasion and questionable sensor-values/behavior.
Or what about the silly SEAL/TLAM missions?
Are the devs serious about these!? They are beyond ridiculous, especially the SEALs mission(s). Say "simulation" again please.

This probably will all be fixed. But I can't see into the future, so I will review what we have so far -and what we have now, is not a sub sim in my books - and that has nothing to do with DW.

Speaking of.
I don't put any Sonalysts titles on a podest, quite the opposite. DW, nor the older ones, aren't perfect - but at least they can be considered a true simulation of submarine warfare, despite some flaws, as they at least deliver a rounded experience. CW still feels like a tablet game that is very empty on a closer look.

No neutrals, no friendlies, no nothing - uh, whales, fancy!

It's a quick-action underwater shooter with some semi-authentic features to create the illusion of a simulation.
If that is the new acceptable standard for "naval simulation", the genre is dead for good indeed.

Feel free to disagree, but this is my honest opinion after multiple campaigns in CW, and years with DW and other titles.
So much for "not being fair".

I suppose the severity of a flaw is a subjective matter, in this case. Personally, I'm all for more control options, and voiceovers will add a lot to the experience, but I can hardly see the lack of those as a critical dealbreaker. To each their own.

Cold Waters does have issues that, while fixable, are current issues nonetheless. They cannot be ignored, but at the same time, being an avid gamer, I know it's par for the course when it comes to freshly-launched games. As long as there's a promise to fix them and the devs aren't significantly overdue, I cannot bury the game for it.

As subsimmers, it behooves us to give them the benefit of patience: if our niche is really this unforgiving, so poised to slam newcomers for not being perfect on release (a supremely unrealistic expectation), it should come as no surprise that hardly anyone ever bothers to bring new entries the genre. The niche would be largely responsible of killing the genre, as opposed to allegedly "unworthy" games.

And to address other specific concerns:

Neutrals? Let's think this through: it's World War III. Neutral shipping will either try to stay the hell away from hot spots, and in the event they have to cross a warzone, it's highly likely they'll be broadcasting their position and neutrality as loudly as possible to avoid being accidentally sunk. They'll also be probably warned off by military surface groups, so you won't find them in any proximity to enemy targets (i.e. not in any immediate mission area).

Friendlies? Modern subs operate alone and largely unsupported (especially in a 1968/1984 scenario). You can be sure there will be other allied submarines and task groups doing their thing, but as a submarine whose primordial purpose is to remain hidden and unknown, you won't be getting close to them. Not tactically, at least.

It comes down to strategic map representation, really. Neutrals would add nothing since they'd be clearly marked as such, you'd know where they are at all times and you wouldn't have anything to do with them. Friendlies could perhaps make an appearance on the general map, but only if a mission explicitly tasks you with acting as a vanguard and clearing the way for them (that'd be interesting), but you'd never coexist with them tactically, within an immediate mission area: you're an unknown contact, and as such you'd only invite friendly fire.

The only exception to this last point I can think of would perhaps be Soviet sub doctrine. I think Soviet subs cooperated at times, and I'm not sure how often, but that's about it.

On the whole, you wouldn't see a strategic map full of unknown icons waiting to be identified because this is a World War with clearly defined sides which are fighting at their fullest capacity. It's not a Harpoon-esque flashpoint scenario with very limited deployments and random "passersby". As a sub commander, you know everything you need to know about your mission, the position of friendlies is likely known but irrelevant to your individual assignment, and so is that of neutrals. Adding all these pointless icons to the strategic view would contribute nothing but clutter, and you'd never find the aforementioned actors mixing in with enemies on the tactical scale your sub operates at.

So yeah, laugh at the whales, but they're literally the only neutral contacts who could randomly wander into a mission area, because a) they're the only ones oblivious to the big human war, and b) they're the only ones physically incapable of communicating they have nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Well, I'm sure how Red Storm Rising handled its TLAM mission had something to do with it. They were apparently quite close to the shore. So close they were right next to a Grisha... I suggest you write Tom Clancy ... oh yeah, he's not with us anymore...

Besides, a TLAM mission in the middle of nowhere would be a non-mission. for such a mission, they might as well put a dot on the strategic map you navigate to, then you just click "Fire TLAMs" and it is done.

Also, it could be argued that by getting very close to the target, you minimize the chance of the missile being intercepted. Sure, firing a cruise missile from hundreds of miles away would be safer for the sub, but you'd give the enemy ample time to detect the warhead and put a ship in its path to shoot it down. Which would be extremely easy for them considering there's always defending vessels in the vicinity of the target.

My main critique point at the moment is the absense of any friendly forces, be it shipping, or air assets, that leads to nonsensical situations.
I just started a new campaign and my first order was to stop a soviet landing force trying to deploy troops at Oslo (mind that at this point, northern europe is firmly in NATO hands).
So I park my boat directly in front of the coast and wait for the convoy. I sink a few ships, the rest turns around. But there is that one pesky helo, one of the escorts launched.
That helo is now calmly searching the entrance of Oslo harbor.
Sorry but situations like this just ruin the immersion. It's one thing to not have any forces ready to attack the convoy before it reaches it's target (Planes, AShMs anyone...). It's a far bigger problem when there is not a single CAP plane present to shoot down a soviet helo, flying deep in NATO territory.