Killerfish's next title: Cold Waters is announced! - Page 6

Hawk66 · 10-14-16, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FPSchazly

It is your guys game, but I would say it should be included. I've created a crude sketch using Dangerous Waters NavMap symbology:

You know the general direction the enemy is coming from, but if you're headed straight towards the enemy, you can get a situation like this where you don't know which one is true. If you end up going with the starboard reciprocal, you're going to get a course that is heading more south southeast than the true contact which is headed west southwest.

I'm not sure how you guys are handling sonar right now, but I think this is something that should be included, or at least considered, in some fashion.

I agree fully to FPSchazly. Pls reconsider the TA handling...this is one the weakspots of RSR...

Julhelm · 10-14-16, 04:59 PM

But all you have to do to resolve the ambiguity is to make the array non-linear - ie: turn the boat. So it would only ever be much of an issue when you first detect someone. And we handle initial detection on the strategic layer. I just can't see how it is tactically significant other than in the very early stages of an approach, like detecting someone in the 1st or 2nd convergence zone.

Hawk66 · 10-15-16, 12:50 AM

But you do not always have contact to all subs in the strategic layer, don't you...for instance a very quiet diesel sub...

FPSchazly · 10-15-16, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julhelm

But all you have to do to resolve the ambiguity is to make the array non-linear - ie: turn the boat. So it would only ever be much of an issue when you first detect someone. And we handle initial detection on the strategic layer. I just can't see how it is tactically significant other than in the very early stages of an approach, like detecting someone in the 1st or 2nd convergence zone.

It's just that it's something that doesn't get resolved until either a) you see the boat in question on a fixed array or b) you change your course. When I'm playing DW, changing course to resolve bearing ambiguities is something that has to factor into my tactical picture. Now, given your convergence zone scenario, I imagine seeing the contact appear in two convergence zones mathematically dictates that it can only be one of those mirror contacts. However, previously undetected enemy subs can enter the tactical picture when you're in close enough that convergence zones don't matter.

I also have a second question that I meant to ask: are you going to have less than 100% confident intel? As in, intel that doesn't pan out, or incorrectly estimates enemy strength? Anything along those lines?

Julhelm · 10-15-16, 09:19 AM

Yes you will, it works exactly like RSR did. And I don't really see what the ambiguity adds in terms of fun. If we were to put that in, we'd have to redesign the AI to take the false bearings into account, which means a lot of development time that could be better spent on other things, like more varied enemy tactics or other campaigns at launch. If you play DW with sonar and TMA autocrew, the bearing ambiguity becomes a non-issue, so I don't see an argument for adding it other than 'realism'.

Julhelm · 10-15-16, 09:24 AM

The intel is never 100% accurate. Briefings will tell you the type of target, but the intel you get during strategic transit only discriminates between submerged and surface groups. Since there can be more than one you'll have to track them and determine which one is your mission target.

You can say that the strategic map is the 'tracking' stage and the combat is the 'approach' stage. DW, SSN and the other games with canned missions doesn't have this distinction, nor does Silent Hunter with its completely open world.

I'd probably assume that any bearing ambiguity gets resolved at this stage. It makes the combat aspect significantly easier to manage from a design perspective.

If we'd done like Silent Hunter it would probably have been more of a factor to add, but as the game is designed, we can abstract things like this.

EthanChan · 10-15-16, 04:24 PM

How about seawolf class? Will not exist in game?

MekStark · 10-16-16, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FPSchazly

You know what game Cold Waters is most like? Cold Waters!

I think it's important to remember that we're talking about video games and the number one thing is that a video game is supposed to be fun. This game sounds very fun!

Dear FPSchazly that is pretty much how we at Killerfish see it. Coming from one obscure airplanes simulations series modding community I can say that the highest fidelity approach of some developers killed a bit of almost three decades flightsimming passion in me. So yeah we want CW to be 1) fun 2) realistic game. Julhelm already explained in depth how our systems works.

tonibamestre · 10-16-16, 09:12 AM

So......... I guess we will be able to give some kind of sub scort to US Navy and allied surface Battle Groups . How many CV classes do you plan to implement ? Would be nice,to have wide range of fleet CVs, USS Coral Sea, Forrestal class, Kitty Hawk, Big E, and if possible the first Nimitz .

Julhelm · 10-16-16, 09:16 AM

The only carriers in the game are the Moskva and Kiev classes. I would model the US fleet for when we do a Soviet campaign but this is a huge task.

Italian Captain · 10-17-16, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FPSchazly

You know the general direction the enemy is coming from, but if you're headed straight towards the enemy, you can get a situation like this where you don't know which one is true. If you end up going with the starboard reciprocal, you're going to get a course that is heading more south southeast than the true contact which is headed west southwest.

I'm not sure how you guys are handling sonar right now, but I think this is something that should be included, or at least considered, in some fashion.

Totally agree...

Foxendown · 10-17-16, 12:55 PM

This sim has huge potential and I'm looking forward to it while hoping the developers will get all the time they need to get it right. The video and the screenshots are very impressive showing off the same superb 3d modela as AF and the sea effects are outstanding. Just one worry niggling away at me though.

I have never played Red Storm Rising but reading a bit about it suggests it was one SSN versus a whole Soviet Fleet. Back then that was the style adopted in a number of games because of computer limitations e.g. Falcon AT which I did play a lot which was one F-16 versus dozens of MiGs and SAM systems. You could win because you had a super plane. That seems to be an outdated model for a sim today. Any sim of modern naval warfare needs to represent a concerted effort by both sides. So, while you may be the captain of a single sub (which is fine by me) there needs in the background to be a wider tactical situation which you can influence and which can also have an impact on you.

I fully appreciate that modelling the whole NATO fleet in 3d would be impracticable, but I hope it will still be present and active on the map as well as other NATO subs. Modern subs do of course operate out of contact for periods of time but over a campaign you would expect them to send and receive a great deal of tactical info and to have some idea of what is going on in the big picture.

Now this may be exactly what is intended. The map screenshot shows a huge area, surely this can't be the hunting ground for just one SSN? Pretty desperate odds if the SSN is realistically modelled. I can see that there are also NATO aircraft on the map which raises my hopes that there will be a wider background campaign going on.

Julhelm · 10-17-16, 02:01 PM

The other NATO forces exist in the campaign, but they are abstracted in so far you do not directly interface with them. Whether you perform your mission orders or not influences the big picture: NATO CVBGs and convoys rely on you to successfully deal with potential threats against them. You do get position updates from reconaissance aircraft, SOSUS and satellites and if you ignore enemy forces, they will cause friendly casualities and impact the overall war. But other than mission-critical info, as far as command is concerned, you're on a need to know basis

Foxendown · 10-18-16, 05:57 AM

Many thanks Julhelm. Well that sounds like a judicious compromise and I feel reassured that this sim has every chance of being realistic and immersive.

I suppose that rules out some situations though. It won't be possible to pick up NATO units on your sensors will it? So if you are screening a NATO carrier group or convoy you will always be out of sensor range? Unlike DW you will have limited freedom to navigate I assume and in 3d only when in combat and unable to call on other NATO units for help? All that seems inevitable and reasonable given the limitations you face in creating so many platforms in detail.

However it doesn't rule out consecutive co-ordinated attacks does it e.g. you locate convoy and report its position then other NATO units attack it "on map"? I'm quite interested in the way subs can gather intelligence and effect recon and I think that would be a good element to incorporate, if you are not already doing so.

Philipp_Thomsen · 10-22-16, 02:28 PM

Ok so all we have to do is replace all these units with WW2 units and we're golden!

10-22-16, 02:28 PM	#90
Philipp_Thomsen Old Gang Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Drunk at the whorehouse Posts: 2,278 Downloads: 146 Uploads: 0	Ok so all we have to do is replace all these units with WW2 units and we're golden! __________________ To each his own

10-14-16, 04:59 PM	#77
Julhelm Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Icy North Posts: 690 Downloads: 189 Uploads: 0	But all you have to do to resolve the ambiguity is to make the array non-linear - ie: turn the boat. So it would only ever be much of an issue when you first detect someone. And we handle initial detection on the strategic layer. I just can't see how it is tactically significant other than in the very early stages of an approach, like detecting someone in the 1st or 2nd convergence zone.

10-15-16, 12:50 AM	#78
Hawk66 Samurai Navy Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Germany Posts: 597 Downloads: 36 Uploads: 0	But you do not always have contact to all subs in the strategic layer, don't you...for instance a very quiet diesel sub...

10-15-16, 09:19 AM	#80
Julhelm Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Icy North Posts: 690 Downloads: 189 Uploads: 0	Yes you will, it works exactly like RSR did. And I don't really see what the ambiguity adds in terms of fun. If we were to put that in, we'd have to redesign the AI to take the false bearings into account, which means a lot of development time that could be better spent on other things, like more varied enemy tactics or other campaigns at launch. If you play DW with sonar and TMA autocrew, the bearing ambiguity becomes a non-issue, so I don't see an argument for adding it other than 'realism'.

10-15-16, 09:24 AM	#81
Julhelm Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Icy North Posts: 690 Downloads: 189 Uploads: 0	The intel is never 100% accurate. Briefings will tell you the type of target, but the intel you get during strategic transit only discriminates between submerged and surface groups. Since there can be more than one you'll have to track them and determine which one is your mission target. You can say that the strategic map is the 'tracking' stage and the combat is the 'approach' stage. DW, SSN and the other games with canned missions doesn't have this distinction, nor does Silent Hunter with its completely open world. I'd probably assume that any bearing ambiguity gets resolved at this stage. It makes the combat aspect significantly easier to manage from a design perspective. If we'd done like Silent Hunter it would probably have been more of a factor to add, but as the game is designed, we can abstract things like this.

10-15-16, 04:24 PM	#82
EthanChan Swabbie Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 10 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	How about seawolf class? Will not exist in game?

10-16-16, 09:12 AM	#84
tonibamestre 中国水兵 Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 271 Downloads: 82 Uploads: 0	So......... I guess we will be able to give some kind of sub scort to US Navy and allied surface Battle Groups . How many CV classes do you plan to implement ? Would be nice,to have wide range of fleet CVs, USS Coral Sea, Forrestal class, Kitty Hawk, Big E, and if possible the first Nimitz .

10-16-16, 09:16 AM	#85
Julhelm Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Icy North Posts: 690 Downloads: 189 Uploads: 0	The only carriers in the game are the Moskva and Kiev classes. I would model the US fleet for when we do a Soviet campaign but this is a huge task.

10-17-16, 12:55 PM	#87
Foxendown Bosun Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 67 Downloads: 79 Uploads: 0	This sim has huge potential and I'm looking forward to it while hoping the developers will get all the time they need to get it right. The video and the screenshots are very impressive showing off the same superb 3d modela as AF and the sea effects are outstanding. Just one worry niggling away at me though. I have never played Red Storm Rising but reading a bit about it suggests it was one SSN versus a whole Soviet Fleet. Back then that was the style adopted in a number of games because of computer limitations e.g. Falcon AT which I did play a lot which was one F-16 versus dozens of MiGs and SAM systems. You could win because you had a super plane. That seems to be an outdated model for a sim today. Any sim of modern naval warfare needs to represent a concerted effort by both sides. So, while you may be the captain of a single sub (which is fine by me) there needs in the background to be a wider tactical situation which you can influence and which can also have an impact on you. I fully appreciate that modelling the whole NATO fleet in 3d would be impracticable, but I hope it will still be present and active on the map as well as other NATO subs. Modern subs do of course operate out of contact for periods of time but over a campaign you would expect them to send and receive a great deal of tactical info and to have some idea of what is going on in the big picture. Now this may be exactly what is intended. The map screenshot shows a huge area, surely this can't be the hunting ground for just one SSN? Pretty desperate odds if the SSN is realistically modelled. I can see that there are also NATO aircraft on the map which raises my hopes that there will be a wider background campaign going on.

10-17-16, 02:01 PM	#88
Julhelm Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Icy North Posts: 690 Downloads: 189 Uploads: 0	The other NATO forces exist in the campaign, but they are abstracted in so far you do not directly interface with them. Whether you perform your mission orders or not influences the big picture: NATO CVBGs and convoys rely on you to successfully deal with potential threats against them. You do get position updates from reconaissance aircraft, SOSUS and satellites and if you ignore enemy forces, they will cause friendly casualities and impact the overall war. But other than mission-critical info, as far as command is concerned, you're on a need to know basis

10-18-16, 05:57 AM	#89
Foxendown Bosun Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 67 Downloads: 79 Uploads: 0	Many thanks Julhelm. Well that sounds like a judicious compromise and I feel reassured that this sim has every chance of being realistic and immersive. I suppose that rules out some situations though. It won't be possible to pick up NATO units on your sensors will it? So if you are screening a NATO carrier group or convoy you will always be out of sensor range? Unlike DW you will have limited freedom to navigate I assume and in 3d only when in combat and unable to call on other NATO units for help? All that seems inevitable and reasonable given the limitations you face in creating so many platforms in detail. However it doesn't rule out consecutive co-ordinated attacks does it e.g. you locate convoy and report its position then other NATO units attack it "on map"? I'm quite interested in the way subs can gather intelligence and effect recon and I think that would be a good element to incorporate, if you are not already doing so.