Realism mod (discussion)

[Stardog765]

Great job!

I am patiently waiting to play much until the helm stuff gets put in but I will be using this mod for sure.

Thanks for your effort.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by PL_Harpoon

Ok guys. Here's the first version of "realism" mod.

I don't want to be a party-pooper, but based on this list, I don't think I'll be using your mod. Of course, it is a personal choice to just not use it, but I feel I should list out my reasoning for your consideration (and perhaps the designer's consideration should he feel like incorporating some of them):

- reduced recon ranges - planes will pretty much detect only what's below them, satelites have a slightly bigger range but still half of what they had
- time 2x slower - that's just my personal preference
- bonus: Nato icons for the map - with the exception of satelites and airplanes, because in the game they rotate to face direction they're going
- Dipping sonar sensitivity increased to 32 - I think the default 26 was a bit too weak
- decreased TMA rate for player and AI to 0.7 - before you could obtain a perfect TMA solutions very quickly. Now you'll have to work for them (change course, use ECM, etc.)

These at least sound like OK to good changes.

- largely increased angular momentum for LA class sub (for testing) - the subs in CW feel a bit too weightless and responsive when it comes to turning. With this on they resemble behaviour from DW. It takes some time before the boat will start rotating and it will also take some time for it to stop. It's also more difficult to dodge torpedoes, but on the flip side, requires even more attention from the player. Right now only works for LA.
- decreased lifetime for knuckles to 3
- decreased noise (effectivnes) for knuckles to 50 - I think knuckles are a bit OP currently. With this mod they stay for very short time and work only when a torpedo is very close

What you are basically doing here is drastically degrading the torpedo evasion dynamics of the sub. I don't know which behavior is "closer to reality", BUT from a gameplay perspective, you might want to consider that DW is centered around automatic control of your sub while CW is around manual control.

Further, compared to DW, the torpedoes feel much more persistent if you didn't get out of their acquisition cones - you are basically twisting and turning, buying time until they run out of fuel, while in DW once you've decoyed them you are done. You also get infinite decoys in DW at the rate of 2 every 30 or so seconds (you can even set them Deep or Shallow) - few would even bother with knuckles (in essence free noisemakers) in DW even if DW lets the player have them.

- MAD detection range reduced to 400 - even 1000 seemed to much for me
- Sonobuoys passive sensitivity reduced to 25 - I believe they were not as strong as BQQ-5.

These sound like realistic changes. My concern is whether the AI can adapt to these alterations. I mean, you are a professional ASW flier, and someone just quietly swapped out your kit for degraded versions without informing you, do you think you might for example use the old intervals, leaving huge gaps in your sonobuoy fields and MAD sweeps?

- increased warheads for all torpedoes and missiles - if known I used real tnt equivalent, if not I multiplied real warhead sizes by 1.8 (tnt ratio of Mk48 warhead materials) for later weapons and 1.3 (tnt ratio of Mk37 warhead materials) for earlier

This may or may not make it more "realistic" overall, but even if it technically is, there's a distinction to be made between the game being technically realistic and its ability to promote "realistic" behavior on the part of the player.

As I understand it, the game started out with values close to your values, but then had its torpedoes nerfed in response to user feedback. Then people started noticing they weren't "one-shotting" cruisers like they used to, and they opened the gamefiles and decided the new warhead value was less than the "realistic" value and we are changing things so we can one-shot cruisers again, justified by the idea that this is the "realistic" result...

OK ... but my thinking is if you are in the real sub, against a cruiser you would use at least two torpedoes considering its value, the need to guarantee a kill ... etc, wouldn't you? The real reason you are even thinking of one torpedo is because this is a game, you are not actually in danger, so if the game lets you get away with it you will use one torpedo. In short, the supposedly less technically accurate value motivates more realistic behavior, and the more accurate one makes people want to game the system and even use "magic" to change reality so they can do gamey things.

And one has to make a choice - if you can't have both which is more important - technical accuracy or substantive accuracy?

- decreased acquisition range for Mark 48 to 1600. - based on a few sources on the internet - now it requires a proper solution or a bit of luck
- decreased sensor angle for Mark 48 to 60. - I think 80 was a bit too much
- increased acquisition range for Test-71 to 1500. - again, based on some internet sources

From a realism standpoint, you've just said that the Mark 48 with all its new-generation seeker is only an incremental improvement over the Mark 37, plus is only insignificantly better than the TEST-71 which is older and from a less advanced electronics base. The "strongest" torpedo is now the USET-80 with 3000m acquisition. Is that what you want?

Further, from a gameplay perspective I understand the desire to suppress behavior like just firing snapshots immediately on sonar pings with expectation of high kill probability. However, it must be noted that wires in this game break a lot - I think 25-50% of my torps lose their wires. Though it is annoying, it does motivate you to set the torp up properly rather than just flinging it out and counting on fixing things with the wire guidance - another case of CW promoting realistic behavior. On the other hand, the torpedo does not get nearly as much assist from the wire-guidance as it should, so do you want to add another nerf?

[elrond petit pas tapons]

Thx, i'm gonna give it a try !

[PL_Harpoon]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

I don't want to be a party-pooper, but based on this list, I don't think I'll be using your mod. Of course, it is a personal choice to just not use it, but I feel I should list out my reasoning for your consideration (and perhaps the designer's consideration should he feel like incorporating some of them):

That's perfectly fine. This is just a test version so that you can give more feedback.

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

What you are basically doing here is drastically degrading the torpedo evasion dynamics of the sub. I don't know which behavior is "closer to reality", BUT from a gameplay perspective, you might want to consider that DW is centered around automatic control of your sub while CW is around manual control.

Further, compared to DW, the torpedoes feel much more persistent if you didn't get out of their acquisition cones - you are basically twisting and turning, buying time until they run out of fuel, while in DW once you've decoyed them you are done. You also get infinite decoys in DW at the rate of 2 every 30 or so seconds (you can even set them Deep or Shallow) - few would even bother with knuckles (in essence free noisemakers) in DW even if DW lets the player have them.

Ok, let me explain. From what I've tested unlike diving which has proper momentum, turning of the ship is just linked to rudder angle. So, even at full speed going from full 30 deg turn to straight takes as much time as it takes for the rudder to centre. That I think is wrong. So, I significantly reduced the rudder speed (perhaps too much) and increased turn rate to compensate. In the game it means you need to use lesser angles more and if you do a full rudder turn you have to commit to it (as it will probably mean changing the course of at least 90 degrees). You can still use the same evasion methods as before.
Now, about the knuckles. I nerfed them simply because in vanilla they felt like free noisemakers, especially in LA subs (where all it takes to create a knuckle is to do a hard turn at flank speed). Now, they are still effective but only at close range.

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

These sound like realistic changes. My concern is whether the AI can adapt to these alterations. I mean, you are a professional ASW flier, and someone just quietly swapped out your kit for degraded versions without informing you, do you think you might for example use the old intervals, leaving huge gaps in your sonobuoy fields and MAD sweeps?

Honestly, this requires some more testing. I know for a fact that helis are still dangerous although it is now possible to shake them off by running deep and silent and changing course.

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

This may or may not make it more "realistic" overall, but even if it technically is, there's a distinction to be made between the game being technically realistic and its ability to promote "realistic" behavior on the part of the player.

As I understand it, the game started out with values close to your values, but then had its torpedoes nerfed in response to user feedback. Then people started noticing they weren't "one-shotting" cruisers like they used to, and they opened the gamefiles and decided the new warhead value was less than the "realistic" value and we are changing things so we can one-shot cruisers again, justified by the idea that this is the "realistic" result...

OK ... but my thinking is if you are in the real sub, against a cruiser you would use at least two torpedoes considering its value, the need to guarantee a kill ... etc, wouldn't you? The real reason you are even thinking of one torpedo is because this is a game, you are not actually in danger, so if the game lets you get away with it you will use one torpedo. In short, the supposedly less technically accurate value motivates more realistic behavior, and the more accurate one makes people want to game the system and even use "magic" to change reality so they can do gamey things.

And one has to make a choice - if you can't have both which is more important - technical accuracy or substantive accuracy?

I agree with what you're thinking. However currently vessel's hull strength is bases on it's displacement.That means, most destroyers are as strong as subs (Sierra has 8100, Sovremenny 8480). From what I gathered, we want subs to sink after one hit, but large vessels to take more. Well, so far it took me 3 torpedoes to sink Kiev (40000t displacement) but only one to take out Sovremenny, which at least in my opinion should take two. So the question is, what's more important: sinking Sierra with one torpedo, or sinking Sovremenny with two?

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

From a realism standpoint, you've just said that the Mark 48 with all its new-generation seeker is only an incremental improvement over the Mark 37, plus is only insignificantly better than the TEST-71 which is older and from a less advanced electronics base. The "strongest" torpedo is now the USET-80 with 3000m acquisition. Is that what you want?

What do you mean by "new-generation seeker"? The Mark-48 in the game are not ADCAPs. Based on this data http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_PostWWII.php they're MOD4s. " Mod 4 added envelope expansion features, including increased speed and deeper diving, and a fire and forget capability." You can interpret that the torpedo can search for targets on it's own (perhaps we should add snake pattern?). Mod4s were issued around 1980, which is around the same time USET-80 came along. Also, reading that page I'm considering making Mk48s more noisy as it states that was their main drawback (currently they're as noisy as other homing torpedoes). Which leads me to this: yes, Mk-48 have comparable detection range to older SET-71, but 71s are much slower and therefore quieter. USETs have longer range (however I couldn't find any data that would prove that so perhaps it is too much) but are also slower than 48s.

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Further, from a gameplay perspective I understand the desire to suppress behavior like just firing snapshots immediately on sonar pings with expectation of high kill probability. However, it must be noted that wires in this game break a lot - I think 25-50% of my torps lose their wires. Though it is annoying, it does motivate you to set the torp up properly rather than just flinging it out and counting on fixing things with the wire guidance - another case of CW promoting realistic behavior. On the other hand, the torpedo does not get nearly as much assist from the wire-guidance as it should, so do you want to add another nerf?

Yeah, I agree that wires brake a bit too much (would be great if we could be able to set break angle from ship). But if you're at 5 or 10 knots and roughly face the direction of a torpedo you can easily wire-guide it for at least 10 KYDS. And I don't agree that wire braking motivates you to setup them properly. In vanilla if I wanted a confirmed hit I just fired a torpedo to activate just as it turned on it's course. The only way it could miss is if there was a wreck between it and the target. A lot of times I just broke the wire myself to load another torp.

My biggest gripe with mk48 right now is the ridiculously over-sized and sensitive passive seeker, preferring to go after a wreck on the floor that's twice as far away and 90 degrees off course, it's so...gah.
No way this is authentic. No way.

[Julhelm]

Of course it's not authentic. We just went with the commonly quoted sensor range. You have to understand that all of the sensor and weapon performance data are educated guesswork because the real figures are classified.

[PL_Harpoon]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

My biggest gripe with mk48 right now is the ridiculously over-sized and sensitive passive seeker, preferring to go after a wreck on the floor that's twice as far away and 90 degrees off course, it's so...gah.
No way this is authentic. No way.

You might try my mod then. It does improve that a bit.

Originally Posted by Julhelm

Of course it's not authentic. We just went with the commonly quoted sensor range. You have to understand that all of the sensor and weapon performance data are educated guesswork because the real figures are classified.

So, was the acquisition range of the USET-80 derrived from some data or was it your guess based on the range of Mk48? I'm just curious, because if it's the latter I'll lower it down for my mod too.

Originally Posted by Julhelm

Of course it's not authentic. We just went with the commonly quoted sensor range. You have to understand that all of the sensor and weapon performance data are educated guesswork because the real figures are classified.

I know that, otherwise it would mean someone is heavily violating OPSEC etc, and I doubt this is/was the case.
Anyways, I wonder why you went with such extreme values, especially after other subsims showed how it is done "right" (makes it feel right, I mean).

It is so absurd to see them going after some wreck some 90° at the horizon instead of the cavitating target 1000y in front of them, especially if the wire broke (thanks for adding the values for that in the config, really!).

[Lanzfeld]

Enjoying the mod Harpoon!

Looking forward to version 2.

No critique real yet. Just trying to "drive" the 688. Not sure if it's realistic but it feels heavy.

[PL_Harpoon]

I've started to think about overhauling torpedo noise, so I've created this simple spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...gid=1880361556

It uses a simple equation to calculate torp noise values.

Feel free to comment/propose better solutions.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by PL_Harpoon

Ok, let me explain. From what I've tested unlike diving which has proper momentum, turning of the ship is just linked to rudder angle. So, even at full speed going from full 30 deg turn to straight takes as much time as it takes for the rudder to centre. That I think is wrong. So, I significantly reduced the rudder speed (perhaps too much) and increased turn rate to compensate. In the game it means you need to use lesser angles more and if you do a full rudder turn you have to commit to it (as it will probably mean changing the course of at least 90 degrees). You can still use the same evasion methods as before.

OK, that sounds more like something I can get behind. I definitely agree that it feels wierd that a 30 degree turn can center in only ~5 degrees. Maybe I'll test it when you've transformed all the subs to this configuration.

Honestly, this requires some more testing. I know for a fact that helis are still dangerous although it is now possible to shake them off by running deep and silent and changing course.

That's good to hear. Though since you've actually boosted the sensitivity of the helicopter's dipping sonar, it should continue to work just fine.

What I'm concerned most of all are the sonobuoys, because they along with the dipping sonar are unique in the game in requiring discrete search as opposed to the continuous search being undertaken by all the other ships and submarines. Discrete search (which includes sprint-and-drift) tactics are a challenge for AI because the decision of what spacing to use between the searches depends on the predicted detection range, which in turn depends on the sensitivity of the detector.

I don't know how they programmed the AI. For example, it may be a fixed formula where they drop buoys every X yards, or it may be a variable formula that takes into account the buoy's designated sensitivity. If it is the former, then the AI won't adjust its tactics to the new weakened buoys and gaps will form, making the nerf far more serious than intended.

Obviously testing is required, but can Julhelm or someone else shed any preliminary light on this topic?

sinking Sierra with one torpedo, or sinking Sovremenny with two?

I can see the dilemma. Personally, if it comes down to it, I'll agree that Sierra and above can require two torpedoes if that's the only way to ensure a Sovremenny has two torps worth of "health".

What do you mean by "new-generation seeker"? The Mark-48 in the game are not ADCAPs.

I know they aren't. But even the Mk 48 Mod 1, the first operational variant is several precious years more advanced than the Mark 37 Mod 2 at a time when computers are just being introduced and advances in sonar technology are made at a high speed. To give an idea the kind of improvements in this era, If you compare for example the 1967 MGK-300 Rubin sonar versus the 1976 MGK-400 Rubikon, the range actually triples from 60 to 200+ kilometers (obviously, they are assuming a very noisy target). In such conditions do you really think the increase over Mark 37 would only be in the order of 60%, even counting the fact it is faster?

As for 1,600m, I can see two possibilities.
1) That might have been the Mark 46 (with a much smaller and thus less capable seeker head). The FAS site seems to have ingested some Mark-46ish information, including "Min/Max ASROC launching ranges 1500 to 12000 yards" and "Run characteristics 6-8 minutes downward".
2) If it really has to do with the Mark 48, it might reflect its surface detection range. If you look at the below site, for the UGST the Russians claim 2.5km detection range against a submarine, but only 1.2km for a surface ship - presumably the surface ship range is less because so much of the ship is out of the water and the increased surface noise so near the surface. From that, we may infer that a torpedo with 4000m acquisition against submarines may plausibly be reduced to roughly 1.6km against a surface ship.
http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/naval-systems/ugst/

Of course, maybe one can argue for gameplay we should nerf the detection range anyway, but the above is my two cents on the "realism" part.

Yeah, I agree that wires brake a bit too much (would be great if we could be able to set break angle from ship). But if you're at 5 or 10 knots and roughly face the direction of a torpedo you can easily wire-guide it for at least 10 KYDS. And I don't agree that wire braking motivates you to setup them properly. In vanilla if I wanted a confirmed hit I just fired a torpedo to activate just as it turned on it's course. The only way it could miss is if there was a wreck between it and the target. A lot of times I just broke the wire myself to load another torp.

Personally, the risk of the target turning out to be very far away has been an effective deterrent against using "gamey tactics", and unfortunately, I've already lost way too many torpedoes within a minute or so of launching them to feel like "easily wire-guide it for at least 10 KYDS" is a reliable idea. In desperation I now stop after launching to try and save my torpedo wires and I consider myself lucky when the torpedo lasts long enough I get to cut the wire.

[Julhelm]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

I know that, otherwise it would mean someone is heavily violating OPSEC etc, and I doubt this is/was the case.
Anyways, I wonder why you went with such extreme values, especially after other subsims showed how it is done "right" (makes it feel right, I mean).

It is so absurd to see them going after some wreck some 90° at the horizon instead of the cavitating target 1000y in front of them, especially if the wire broke (thanks for adding the values for that in the config, really!).

We went with the published official data. But there are some issues I was not aware of when I balanced the weapons. A lot of the torpedo data comes from Navweaps and USNI World Naval Weapon Systems so it's not like we randomly pull numbers from somewhere. Fast Attack felt about right, but no idea what the acquisition ranges actually were in that game, because of the abstract WYSIWYG nature of the plots.

[PL_Harpoon]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

That's good to hear. Though since you've actually boosted the sensitivity of the helicopter's dipping sonar, it should continue to work just fine.

They seem to work nice during my testing. Right now it works something like that. If he's let's say about 500 yards away he won't get a precise solution if you're sailing deep and in silent mode. But as soon as you go to as much as 10 knots he can track you easily.

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

I can see the dilemma. Personally, if it comes down to it, I'll agree that Sierra and above can require two torpedoes if that's the only way to ensure a Sovremenny has two torps worth of "health".

Well, we have 300 tons of displacement between them so there is some leeway here. Perhaps I should fine-tune it so that a Mark 48 can just barely kill a Sierra but just almost kill Sovremenny.

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

I know they aren't. But even the Mk 48 Mod 1, the first operational variant is several precious years more advanced than the Mark 37 Mod 2 at a time when computers are just being introduced and advances in sonar technology are made at a high speed. To give an idea the kind of improvements in this era, If you compare for example the 1967 MGK-300 Rubin sonar versus the 1976 MGK-400 Rubikon, the range actually triples from 60 to 200+ kilometers (obviously, they are assuming a very noisy target). In such conditions do you really think the increase over Mark 37 would only be in the order of 60%, even counting the fact it is faster?

As for 1,600m, I can see two possibilities.
1) That might have been the Mark 46 (with a much smaller and thus less capable seeker head). The FAS site seems to have ingested some Mark-46ish information, including "Min/Max ASROC launching ranges 1500 to 12000 yards" and "Run characteristics 6-8 minutes downward".
2) If it really has to do with the Mark 48, it might reflect its surface detection range. If you look at the below site, for the UGST the Russians claim 2.5km detection range against a submarine, but only 1.2km for a surface ship - presumably the surface ship range is less because so much of the ship is out of the water and the increased surface noise so near the surface. From that, we may infer that a torpedo with 4000m acquisition against submarines may plausibly be reduced to roughly 1.6km against a surface ship.
http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/naval-systems/ugst/

Of course, maybe one can argue for gameplay we should nerf the detection range anyway, but the above is my two cents on the "realism" part.

Well, there's also the case of self noise. A very good sensor may be just as effective on a noisy platform as a worse sensor on a quiet one. That could explain them having similar detection ranges. If you compare propulsion, all Soviet torpedoes use electric batteries, while Mk48 uses piston engines along with pump jets. It also has two propellers. I think that can create a lot more noise that relatively quiet electric motors.

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Personally, the risk of the target turning out to be very far away has been an effective deterrent against using "gamey tactics", and unfortunately, I've already lost way too many torpedoes within a minute or so of launching them to feel like "easily wire-guide it for at least 10 KYDS" is a reliable idea. In desperation I now stop after launching to try and save my torpedo wires and I consider myself lucky when the torpedo lasts long enough I get to cut the wire.

That's why, after some time with the game I quickly started to set torpedo waypoints close and only after they didn't break I moved them closer to target. But the patch seemed to improve that as right now Mk48s have 10% chance of braking the wire instead of initial 25.

[Lanzfeld]

Hey Harpoon,
Have you looked at the "refined sonar and countermeasures" mod in the download section? I was wondering if this might be something that you would want to add to your realism Mod. I think basically it makes all sonars less sensitive. It seems like it would be more realistic to me. What do you think?


Also when using a realistic mod what factor should be used under distance setting? X1, x2, etc...?

[PL_Harpoon]

Originally Posted by Lanzfeld

Hey Harpoon,
Have you looked at the "refined sonar and countermeasures" mod in the download section? I was wondering if this might be something that you would want to add to your realism Mod. I think basically it makes all sonars less sensitive. It seems like it would be more realistic to me. What do you think?

Yeah, I have, but the thing is, I don't think that sonars are on the whole too powerful. If you consider that engagement starts as soon as there's a contact it seems that your sensors can pick up a convoy at 20 km (with good weather). I think that's a reasonable distance. With silent running subs it can go down to 5.

As for the active countermeasures, they seem interesting at first but then they're using VLS which is a detriment to me, and what's the point anyway?
To be honest I haven't noticed a difference in behaviour between active and passive torpedoes (other that passive don't ping). From my experience you can be dead silent and still be detected by a passive torp at the same distance as with active. They also react identical to noisemakers.

In my opinion they should work like that:
Passive torps effectiveness should increase with the noise of the target countered by the speed (noise) of a torpedo and ambient noise. When encountering the noisemaker they should identify it as such and try to go around it (basically like they do it now). Also, they should not go for wrecks or at least try to avoid them just like noisemakers.

Active torpedoes effectiveness should depend entirely on distance to target reduced only if they're on the opposite side of a layer. When they encounter a countermeasure they should just go for it with a chance of exploding on contact (their ping has returned so there must be a target there). They also might accidentally target a wreck.

If we had torpedoes acting like that or similar, having active CM would make sense. Right now it doesn't.

Originally Posted by Lanzfeld

Also when using a realistic mod what factor should be used under distance setting? X1, x2, etc...?

Yeah, I forgot about that.
1:1 scale, 1x time.