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

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

You said "while I have to drive the friggin' boat myself" which suggests part of your frustration is with the manual control. Since I don't think you are complaining about the manual control even though it is a breeze for you, I estimate your frustration is because it is actually challenging.

So in other words, just another straw-man so we won't have to focus on the actual criticism made by me?
If you must know, I broached once. First tutorial. Big deal.
Never grounded my sub, never collided with anything.
There goes your irrelevant assumption.
Also, I never gave you any reason to pull things out of yours, I explained why I strongly dislike being forced to rely on manual controls, you simply won't accept this - but that is your problem, not mine.
And no way how you try to twist it, having the Captain to control the sub 100% manually, or manual at all for that matter, is flat out retarded in a simulation that claims to put you in the captains perspective.
End of.

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

I can certainly accept it is not your cup of tea. However, there is a difference between saying it is not your cup of tea and that it is "unfinished", based on "missing" features that weren't even part of the original design or concept, and are probably antithetical to it. Or calling AI enemies "dumb" even though they are actually threatening to you (which is their most important game function).

Excuse me?
Who are you talking to?
Where did I say the enemy is threatening? I actually often said the opposite and complained about how I take down multiple SSN with them not evading torpedoes efficiently, or at least shooting back at the bearing of my, very loud, Mk48!

Stop pulling things out of thin air, this is almost slander.

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Or not realizing both CW and DW/SC/688 rely on manual work to drive up the player's workload, only that CW succeeds in making the player work harder.

Wrong.
DW is a sensor and station sim. The very point of it is clicking buttons.
There goes your argument.


I shared my honest opinion about CW in its current state.
As I said, just try to live with it.

[PL_Harpoon]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

What you are arguing for is formal realism, and I've given you my thoughts on this on Post #53 & #58. They have already tried this approach in the 688I through Dangerous Waters series. I have enjoyed all those games. However, because of that, I am also aware of its weakness - because ultimately, you are not driving a real sub in a real, lethal fight, all that aid plus none of the complications means your Net Cognitive Load is much lower than a real submarine captain, even counting all the training he has and you don't. This is reflected in the frequent use of the Time Compression and 3D view systems - the game isn't stimulating you enough.

Have you considered that part of the point of the manual TMA, sonar and fire control systems (and even the Flood, Equalize and Muzzle Door buttons) in the 688-DW line is to give the otherwise bored player something to do? If it is really about formally simulating the sub commander's experience, those parts will be fully automated. However, to perform at those stations at a level sufficient to beat the AI is not in general difficult (and I am saying this as a person who has no illusions of being a really good player) so you still wind up with a lot of time to spare. Plus, if you need more time, there's always the Almighty Pause button (which has nothing to do with reality, of course).

Cold Waters has another solution to this problem - take away most of the aid you've been getting and make the enemy really lethal. And you know what? It works. As you tacitly admit, now you are task overloaded - your Cognitive Load is now much closer to a real commander in the thick of it. So you have to ask yourself, whether you prefer to be underworked in a subsim that formally reflects reality while actually not, or whether you want to feel like you are working just like a real submarine captain.

I'm sorry man, I enjoy this game a lot, more that DW even but some of your arguments are just bizarre, to say the least.

What aid in DW are you talking about? Having a helmsman? I assure you, nobody would complain if Sonalyst would create fully working helm station with manual controls in DW. I also doubt they didn't do it to "aid" the player somehow. My guess would be that didn't feel it was necessary in the game - a thought which seemed consistent with pretty much every subsim developer. And I don't mean that the devs should remove manual controls from the game. They're fine and have their uses. But saying that the game shouldn't have optional direct commands is like saying you shouldn't have an autopilot in a flight sim, because "it will make you push that dreadful 'accelerate time' button".

And the argument, that removing manual TMA and sonar and replacing them with mandatory manual helm controls will somehow overload the player is just absurd. Steering the boat does not require half as much focus and brain-power as working a TMA solution. It does, however require player's attention. And just like some of us find searching for solutions tedious, others find piloting the boat tedious.

And my last point is... there's nothing wrong with time-acceleration during the boring bits.

Originally Posted by VolvicCH

You know how forums work, right?

Yes, and I don't mind an exchange of opinions.
However, I do mind people not accepting my opinion, literally claiming it is wrong because theirs is right.

Do you understand this - or will I have to explain?

[Philipp_Thomsen]

Let me rephrase what I said about SIM vs Arcade.

There's no clear line that divides the two, it's just common sense.
For example:

ArmA 3 is a simulator, while Battlefield 3 is arcade.
Project Cars is a simulator, while Gran Turismo 5 is arcade.

This is not set on stone, but it's common knowledge and most agree.
Sure there's always the die-hard fan of GT5 that stubbornly refuses to admit PCars is more of a sim than GT5, but we usually ignore those.

It's like what my signature states.

You can always throw gasoline in the fire in this argument saying that
"hey, there's a submarine and it goes up and down and it has a periscope and it can fire torpedoes, therefore is a simulator"

But in the same light then I could say MS Window's "Minesweeper" is a great minefield simulator. It has the mines and they can blow up.

Bottomline is, Cold Waters is what it is and I can appreciate what they are trying to do and I'm sure there's a lot of
people out there who will be able to have fun with it, as they are interested in arcadish aspects of games, but I'm not.

You may also say "but in real life, did captains turn knobs, pressed buttons or turn on/off switches?"
No, they gave orders for someone else to do it. HOWEVER, if they wanted to, they could.
So, the more options the game gives, and the most realistic those options are, the more of a simulator it will be.
Driving your sub around in 3rd person camera using WASD is, in my opinion, as arcade as a game can get.
It's my opinion, I'm entitled to one.

I'm not at all interested in persuading CW developers to release updates that add more to the realism, nope.
The game is what it is, and I'm simply not interested in it. I'm just slightly surprised to see a game such as CW here at Subsim.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by dergrunty

Really? Thats your answer? Semantics? It doesn't matter how many. As soon as the soviets have AS there would not be a single, vulnerable, multi-engine turboprop flying around.

In 1984, the Soviets did not have fighters with good look down capability (the MiG-31 is a PVO interceptor and also quite new at that point), so it is actually realistic for an occasional P-3, flying low, to be able to sneak past any patrols. Doesn't that thought kind of make the game touching - the P-3 pilots risking death to fly their missions? I thought you wanted air support?

You know extremely little about the broader picture while playing the campaign (as is realistic). But even though you know very little, you automatically accuse. If you had promptly died to a Silex, and that ARG landed, some infantryman in Norway may well be thinking about why "no NATO assets" helped them out. Would that be fair?

• control of the sub
• crew voices
• lack of mission variety (in 9/10 cases: go there, sink that)

Read my previous comments on the first two. As for the third, isn't that realistic?

Originally Posted by Philipp_Thomsen

You can always throw gasoline in the fire in this argument saying that
"hey, there's a submarine and it goes up and down and it has a periscope and it can fire torpedoes, therefore is a simulator"

But in the same light then I could say MS Window's "Minesweeper" is a great minefield simulator. It has the mines and they can blow up.

Bottomline is, Cold Waters is what it is and I can appreciate what they are trying to do and I'm sure there's a lot of
people out there who will be able to have fun with it, as they are interested in arcadish aspects of games, but I'm not.

Very well said!

[PL_Harpoon]

Originally Posted by Philipp_Thomsen

You can always throw gasoline in the fire in this argument saying that
"hey, there's a submarine and it goes up and down and it has a periscope and it can fire torpedoes, therefore is a simulator"

You can throw even more gasoline saying it's arcade.

Originally Posted by Philipp_Thomsen

I'm just slightly surprised to see a game such as CW here at Subsim.

If you're interested, you can actually find out, but you'll have to put up with WSAD controls. Or wait until the devs add proper commands. Either way if you could spend enough time with the game you'd find out that there's enough things in CW that would classify it as a sim. Just not a hardcore one.

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

In 1984, the Soviets did not have fighters with good look down capability (the MiG-31 is a PVO interceptor and also quite new at that point), so it is actually realistic for an occasional P-3, flying low, to be able to sneak past any patrols. Doesn't that thought kind of make the game touching - the P-3 pilots risking death to fly their missions? I thought you wanted air support?

I don't even...

[VolvicCH]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Yes, and I don't mind an exchange of opinions.
However, I do mind people not accepting my opinion, literally claiming it is wrong because theirs is right.

Do you understand this - or will I have to explain?

Then maybe you should have written that, rather than what you actually wrote. Do you understand that or should I explain?

Originally Posted by VolvicCH

Then maybe you should have written that, rather than what you actually wrote. Do you understand that or should I explain?

You are correct of course.
It was my mistake to assume some people would get the point anyways.

This still doesn't explain your off-topic drive-by posting though.
Your comment is off topic and only derails the thread.

[VolvicCH]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

You are correct of course.
It was my mistake to assume some people would get the point anyways.

This still doesn't explain your off-topic drive-by posting though.
Your comment is off topic and only derails the thread.

I just thought your original comment was incredibly stupid, given the nature of the medium we are using. Now that you have clarified, it makes a bit more sense of course.

Originally Posted by VolvicCH

I just thought your original comment was incredibly stupid, given the nature of the medium we are using. Now that you have clarified, it makes a bit more sense of course.

I guess misunderstandings happen.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Also, I never gave you any reason to pull things out of yours, I explained why I strongly dislike being forced to rely on manual controls, you simply won't accept this - but that is your problem, not mine.

Let me put it this way. Either this manual control (and also, the requirement you read the screen) is putting significant stress on your cognitive faculties or it isn't. If it is (and your wording so far implies such to me), then it is by design, is (IMO) healthy, and certainly not a basis for saying the product is unfinished.

And if it isn't a significant congitive load, is there really anything complaining about? You call a game "unfinished" because of a supposed flaw that only caused an insignificant cognitive load on you in any case?

Where did I say the enemy is threatening? I actually often said the opposite and complained about how I take down multiple SSN with them not evading torpedoes efficiently, or at least shooting back at the bearing of my, very loud, Mk48!

I have conceded at a fairly early stage that the evasion system isn't all that it could be, leaving the active sonar thing. Let's go and look at your post:

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

See above, and they do always detect you.
Not with the first ping necessarily, but sooner or later they will, except distance is growing, then they may never detect you, but mostly I find the enemy approaching me/closing distance.
However, since sending a fish down the first active-intercept bearing is enough in CW in very most cases, it doesn't even matter.

It shows how lackluster this tactic is, though.

To this reader, though you did not admit it directly, that's threatening. What you probably really wanted to do here is do things "right" and make a proper TMA solution before shooting. But because of their aggressive use of active sonar, you did not feel safe doing that, so instead you flip off fish at the pings. While that does work due to the Mark 48's excellence, the relatively close ranges, and their evasion technique not being all that it could be, it still forced you to adapt to it, and I think it is only sporting to admit to that.

Further, here:

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

The Victor III started pinging me after the engagement with the Victor I was over. Until then, it stayed silent - and undetected!

The Victor-III was actually doing something kind of smart. It already knows you are out there somewhere (no more saying he was unprovoked) and is trying to find you. Your implied solution that he should have stayed passive is mitigated by the fact that you have a 22dB noise superiority over him (115 v 137), expanding to 23dB counting the bow sonar and 27dB counting the towed array (48 v 44). With up to a 27dB acoustic advantage, where is the basis for him thinking his interest was staying passive?

DW is a sensor and station sim. The very point of it is clicking buttons.

So, you can forgive one sim because you labeled it in your mind as A and another sim flunks in your mind because it is labeled B?

Originally Posted by PL_Harpoon

That aid in DW are you talking about? Having a helmsman?

I know I am outnumbered by about 100:1 here but yes, that, and I wasn't specifically referring to DW there - the most universal, commonly given "aid" in all of subsims seems to be the automatic helm and plane control.

I assure you, nobody would complain if Sonalyst would create fully working helm station with manual controls in DW.

In case you hadn't realized it, there is actually already a helm station (just not a plane station) in DW - just click on the right parts of the rudder window to manually set the rudder.

You probably don't need the helm as much in DW anyway, for the simple reason that the torpedoes in DW are much less persistent. You can dodge them just fine using the bearing intercept receiver and the automatic control system. Everyone is staring desperately out the 3D view in Cold Waters because the torpedoes are persistent in their reattacks.

But saying that the game shouldn't have optional direct commands is like saying you shouldn't have an autopilot in a flight sim, because "it will make you push that dreadful 'accelerate time' button".

The two are not comparable. A autopilot in a flight sim typically only keeps the plane flying straight and level (and if you just want Straight and Level, Cold Waters has that), or flying between waypoints in a non-combat situation. It is not really helpful in a combat situation so once plane get into the combat zone, the gamer takes control of the plane himself.

In a subsim, the automatic steering dominates in virtually all circumstances, including combat.

And the argument, that removing manual TMA and sonar and replacing them with mandatory manual helm controls will somehow overload the player is just absurd. Steering the boat does not require half as much focus and brain-power as working a TMA solution. It does, however require player's attention. And just like some of us find searching for solutions tedious, others find piloting the boat tedious.

Speaking as a person that has never really mastered TMA, it is nevertheless easy to do once you get enough signal to classify the target and the DEMON shows the first blade - at that point you get speed and once you lock speed and bearing, fiddling that onscreen sliderule to get course and range is not that hard. It is hard (beyond my ability, honestly) without that, but with that it is easy.

Further, DW is not really that punitive compared to CW so even if you are stuck or just feel things aren't going fast enough for you ... let's just say I confess to the sin of using radar and active sonar ... and DW let's me get away with it. Plus there's a pause button, which no one seems to complain as unrealistic.

Now, I'm not sure whether manual helm "should" overload the player. I do, however, notice a large amount of complaints over this topic. I also notice that more than one Youtuber with a video where they "mysteriously" broached. I actually have a confession (he's blaming the game, of course) from a "Brygun" over at Steamcommunity where he was having fun with the 3D camera watching his weapon hit a ship while on ascent to periscope depth ... then he broached and died. That along with my own experience suggests that the manual helm puts a significant (and IMO healthy) cognitive load on the average player, certainly forcing them to pay attention.

And shouldn't the captain "pay attention" to his subs' maneuvers? But realistic subsims don't really make us do that. They might make us care about the TMA solution, but maneuvering seems beneath our notice, something to be fobbed off to the Autocrew. The result are players like Brygun, whose inattentiveness cost him his game, yet he blames the game!

And my last point is... there's nothing wrong with time-acceleration during the boring bits.

Maybe there is nothing "wrong", but it definitely has nothing to do with real submariner mentality over the same situation. It is also a sign a game is not putting enough cognitive load on the player if it is has to be used too often.

[Shadow]

Originally Posted by dergrunty

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.

This is situational, yet a very valid point, actually. Hadn't considered it. An easy way to handle this would be to implement an off-map SAM/AAM strike X minutes after the helo's launch, as long as the encounter's taking place within a certain distance of NATO-held territory. Around Oslo, NATO would be on high alert, especially if they're aware the area's been chosen by the Soviets for an amphibious landing: anti-air missiles would be lancing towards the helo(s) in virtually no time at all.

[Julhelm]

This is generally only a case in those rare situations where you encounter enemy forces literally next to their target itself.

When we get around to doing the Soviet campaign and modelling all the NATO assets, then we'll have the assets available to enable some of these friendlies in the campaign, similar to Strike Fighters.

Also I don't get this fanatical devotion to 'realism'. This game most closely resembles the old Microprose 'action sims' or Novalogic 'light sims' which focused on entertaining action but with real world units with real-world performance. This insistence on real world stats is what sets sims apart from arcade games - Ace Combat has meticolously modelled real-world planes and cockpits, but there is no flight model, no weapon parameters, etc. Novalogic's F-22 on the other hand is a sim - it has rudimentary radar modes, different types of aircraft have different stats in line with published figures, and weapons behave and feel like they are based on the real thing. The fact that Falcon 4 was available at the same time and much more hardcore realistic doesn't mean F-22 automatically gets denigrated to an arcade game. It's just a more casual take on the same idea. You will find a lot of people fondly remember this style of 'lite sim' even today.