RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Tech Support >> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? - 11/3/2020 4:14:43 PM

ShadowB

Posts: 86
Joined: 8/14/2004
From: Buenos Aires
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

As the test I posted shows, the sub detects the pinging ship many times further away than the ship detects the sub. If the scenario is set with reasonable positioning, proper ROEs, and a good understanding of how subs can hide, subs are a hard to manage for any fleet, but they are a nightmare for single ships. Even a modern Burke is easy bait for a short range torpedo if its actively pinging.

But that merely elevates the sub from "surveillance platform" to "suicide striker".

From where I'm standing, assuming a more reasonable scenario, the only chance a torpedo-only submarine has of surviving its own attack on a comparable tech helo-equipped warship is by drifting into its path, pray to all gods it's not picked up by passive sonar or fortuitiously patrolling aircraft, and launching while in baffles.

The launch has to go by completely, utterly, absolutely unnoticed, and by the time the torpedoes hit, they have to take the embarked helo with the ship or leave it without the slightest whiff of where the fish came from. A surviving helo with a hint is all it takes to doom the submarine.

What am I missing?

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 61

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? - 11/3/2020 5:49:06 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

Just ran some tests with a Burke against a Kilo in a couple different locations. All sea states and weather are 0. A few broad conclusions:

- Sea floor depth matters and makes a big difference
- Obviously, active vs passive is a huge factor
- Ship speed impacts detection on both sides of the sensor.
- There is quite a bit of variability in detection ranges, as I would expect.

Things I didn't test: sea state, sub speed, relativity to layers, diesel vs nuke, and I'm sure others. I ran each test 5 times. Not statistically significant, but directionally interesting.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 62

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? - 11/3/2020 5:55:03 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

"But that merely elevates the sub from "surveillance platform" to "suicide striker".

From where I'm standing, assuming a more reasonable scenario, the only chance a torpedo-only submarine has of surviving its own attack on a comparable tech helo-equipped warship is by drifting into its path, pray to all gods it's not picked up by passive sonar or fortuitiously patrolling aircraft, and launching while in baffles.

The launch has to go by completely, utterly, absolutely unnoticed, and by the time the torpedoes hit, they have to take the embarked helo with the ship or leave it without the slightest whiff of where the fish came from. A surviving helo with a hint is all it takes to doom the submarine.

What am I missing?"

I'm not sure you're missing much against a modern warship, especially one with a helo. Once you fire a torp, all bets are off. If there is more than one ship or a nearby help, its going to be a bad day. Even with older sonar, torp noise will give an immediate bearing. In my tests, the sub mostly survives because the ship immediately turns away and runs. In other tests I am doing on sub combat, if the ship fires down the bearing, you are going to force the sub to run. Then, any nearby ship or helo has a good chance to find the sub.

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 63

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? - 11/3/2020 6:23:33 PM

Battelman2

Posts: 93
Joined: 12/1/2018
Status: offline

Regarding what Dimitris said about CMO's AI, you will find me perhaps overly critical because artificial intelligence, game agents, and deep/machine learning is what I do for a living.

I have about 500 hours in Command which I don't suggest is a lot but should be enough to have formed valid opinions about some of its strengths and weaknesses as a wargame.

All of my opinions regarding CMO essentially boil down to the following: Command has a really impressive wealth of information and applies it to the simulation rather well, but falls short in unit autonomy. Yes, the units will get where they need to go, and they will do their job. However, as far as "intelligence" goes, the AI simply isn't very smart.

Remember this thread about SARH A2A combat? The consensus seems to be that the Eagles need to attack in a certain manner in order to win that fight- that head on mano-a-mano they are doomed to lose that engagement. Well if I stick a million F-15s in an AAW Patrol mission, every single one of them is going to charge the bogeys head-on. If I want to execute a more intelligent interception, I need to take over myself.

"Taking over" is how I would describe playing Command. The unit agent is painfully na�ve and is often what causes the loss of the unit. Imagine if air superiority fighters were smart enough to keep their distance from known SAM sites or SAGs, without me needing to create a no-nav zone for every single one. If I were to write a review for CMO right now, it would be a four star rating saying something like "CMO is a very high fidelity simulator with a lot going for it, but for the fifth star it needs to improve the unit/mission agent AI. All-told I 100% recommend CMO to friends"

If I had the time and the source code, I would be thrilled to develop my own unit agents that actually resemble artificial intelligence, rather than the "if-then-else" feeling that I get from the current logic. Perhaps it's doable in Lua, but to be blunt it really should be something Command does given the extent the simulation goes in all other aspects. I wouldn't ask this of World of Warships, but Command, "Wargame of the Year," has positioned itself as a game that deserves and needs such AI. It's almost jarring for such an in-depth simulator to have units behaving so predictably by the rules that were written for its mission.

I know the CMO devs have a lot on their plate, and it's not fair of me to demand improvements to the AI agents, but from my humble perspective that is perhaps the biggest item holding CMO back. It affects subs, it affects fighters, it affects SAM sites, it negatively affects most units in Command.

This goes beyond the scope of this thread, so if others are interested in discussing AI further I would love to do so in its own thread. Imagining a future Command where the units have intelligent game agents makes me kind of giddy :)

< Message edited by Battelman2 -- 11/3/2020 6:26:26 PM >

(in reply to ShadowB)

Post #: 64

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? - 11/3/2020 7:50:22 PM

ShadowB

Posts: 86
Joined: 8/14/2004
From: Buenos Aires
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

"But that merely elevates the sub from "surveillance platform" to "suicide striker".

From where I'm standing, assuming a more reasonable scenario, the only chance a torpedo-only submarine has of surviving its own attack on a comparable tech helo-equipped warship is by drifting into its path, pray to all gods it's not picked up by passive sonar or fortuitiously patrolling aircraft, and launching while in baffles.

The launch has to go by completely, utterly, absolutely unnoticed, and by the time the torpedoes hit, they have to take the embarked helo with the ship or leave it without the slightest whiff of where the fish came from. A surviving helo with a hint is all it takes to doom the submarine.

What am I missing?"

I'm not sure you're missing much against a modern warship, especially one with a helo. Once you fire a torp, all bets are off. If there is more than one ship or a nearby help, its going to be a bad day. Even with older sonar, torp noise will give an immediate bearing. In my tests, the sub mostly survives because the ship immediately turns away and runs. In other tests I am doing on sub combat, if the ship fires down the bearing, you are going to force the sub to run. Then, any nearby ship or helo has a good chance to find the sub.

I suppose my comments are tangentially related to my failings on the first submarine tutorial "exam", which pits a gimped (35kt torps only) Greek diesel sub versus a more capable Turkish frigate with an embarked helo. The same situation applies there. Unless the frigate fortuitously sails overhead and places you in its baffles, there's nothing you can do.

The starting position is close to that point, but you have no accurate idea on the ship's approach, and if you don't miraculously move where the game expects you to, the frigate will sail by with impunity. Launching outside its baffles is not only a death sentence: the alerted target's 30-knot max speed will likely foil most torps as well.

So the only lesson that really sticks is that torpedoes are an absolute last resort if the target's armed and remotely contemporary. Only a diesel sub hugging the seafloor in a perfect position has a chance of surviving its own attack (versus a single vessel). In all other cases, if you're ever forced to use torpedoes, it's probably only to take the enemy with you at best. They won't save your crew.

Perhaps there's something to be tweaked about decoys or AI evasion? I've only been able to dodge a torpedo being completely out of the way by the time it came. Not that it'd help much with helos dropping them on top of you. Perhaps games like Cold Waters just exaggerate the effectiveness of decoys and maneuvering to make an interesting game, and in reality those things don't amount to much versus a contemporary fish.

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 65

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? - 11/3/2020 8:59:41 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

See my play through. There is nothing relevant to "baffles" in it. You see that frigate coming from literally 10s of miles away. It gives you plenty of time to sit and wait for him to come closer.

To me its understanding in detail the capabilities of your sub and the capabilities of the enemy ship. No towed array and pinging actively makes that frigate VERY vulnerable to a sub ambush. That diesel sub is very quite at creep and stop. The enemy ship has to be almost on top of it, like in meters, not nm.

The briefing gives a lot of hints on the approach in that scenario.

(in reply to ShadowB)

Post #: 66

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? - 11/4/2020 1:51:28 AM

Rory Noonan

Posts: 2816
Joined: 12/18/2014
From: Brooklyn, NY
Status: offline

Logged for investigation.

0014238

_____________________________

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 67

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? - 11/4/2020 8:21:44 AM

Herman_Hum

Posts: 12
Joined: 7/16/2018
Status: offline

Warfare Tactics Instructor and ASWO aboard a DDG: He states submarines in Command definitely need an overhaul.

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 68

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? - 11/6/2020 8:30:42 PM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

Discussed this with a veteran SME yesterday. His view is that the model is "spot on as far as the public needs to know". I suggested two points of potential improvement and he agreed on both.

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to Herman_Hum)

Post #: 69

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? - 11/6/2020 9:01:43 PM

tylerblakebrandon

Posts: 173
Joined: 5/11/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Battelman2

... but falls short in unit autonomy. Yes, the units will get where they need to go, and they will do their job. However, as far as "intelligence" goes, the AI simply isn't very smart.

... The consensus seems to be that the Eagles need to attack in a certain manner in order to win that fight- that head on mano-a-mano they are doomed to lose that engagement. Well if I stick a million F-15s in an AAW Patrol mission, every single one of them is going to charge the bogeys head-on. If I want to execute a more intelligent interception, I need to take over myself.

"Taking over" is how I would describe playing Command. The unit agent is painfully na�ve and is often what causes the loss of the unit. Imagine if air superiority fighters were smart enough to keep their distance from known SAM sites or SAGs, without me needing to create a no-nav zone for every single one. If I were to write a review for CMO right now, it would be a four star rating saying something like "CMO is a very high fidelity simulator with a lot going for it, but for the fifth star it needs to improve the unit/mission agent AI. All-told I 100% recommend CMO to friends"

I think your missing a key part of Command. That it is designed to be a-doctrinal. Several of the points above if implemented would link directly into a fixed set of tactics and doctrine. Being a-doctrinal allows Command to better represent the various nations and time periods covered.

(in reply to Battelman2)

Post #: 70

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? - 11/6/2020 11:00:46 PM

Battelman2

Posts: 93
Joined: 12/1/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tylerblakebrandon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Battelman2

... but falls short in unit autonomy. Yes, the units will get where they need to go, and they will do their job. However, as far as "intelligence" goes, the AI simply isn't very smart.

... The consensus seems to be that the Eagles need to attack in a certain manner in order to win that fight- that head on mano-a-mano they are doomed to lose that engagement. Well if I stick a million F-15s in an AAW Patrol mission, every single one of them is going to charge the bogeys head-on. If I want to execute a more intelligent interception, I need to take over myself.

"Taking over" is how I would describe playing Command. The unit agent is painfully na�ve and is often what causes the loss of the unit. Imagine if air superiority fighters were smart enough to keep their distance from known SAM sites or SAGs, without me needing to create a no-nav zone for every single one. If I were to write a review for CMO right now, it would be a four star rating saying something like "CMO is a very high fidelity simulator with a lot going for it, but for the fifth star it needs to improve the unit/mission agent AI. All-told I 100% recommend CMO to friends"

I think your missing a key part of Command. That it is designed to be a-doctrinal. Several of the points above if implemented would link directly into a fixed set of tactics and doctrine. Being a-doctrinal allows Command to better represent the various nations and time periods covered.

Maybe. But I would argue that smarter unit agents =/= doctrinal. There are some basic tactics that I would argue are a-doctrinal that units could take that improve survivability. By the way, we already do have some borderline-doctrinal behavior such as cranking. I don't know exactly where the line should be drawn, but heading straight at a superior enemy without backup probably isn't the best tactic for any doctrine.

I may have sounded like I wanted the units to do everything themselves and be smart about it, but that's not quite the case. Otherwise players would set up missions and then sit on their thumb for hours. I'm just making the argument: "what is the point of AAW Patrol missions if my fighters are going to suicide themselves and I have to micromanage them anyway?" In fact- you don't necessarily even have to make the units smarter. There are potentially other ways to dynamically respond to threats without wrestling with each of your units the whole way. For example, some patrol missions such as SCP have an option for submarine pathing where you can choose between shortest distance, CZs, etc.... A similar option for fighters to engage in smarter ways than "head on, one by one" would go a long way.

(in reply to tylerblakebrandon)

Post #: 71

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? - 11/6/2020 11:03:38 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

"But I would argue that smarter unit agents =/= doctrinal"

But whose doctrine? Coming back to the template idea...there could be a template for national doctrine and time period. It could even be locked by a scenario designer so that you are forced to play in the constraints of a national and period naval doctrine.

Its all well and good to be the God of War and ignore national doctrine through all the switchology you can get. But try fighting that battle in PLAN doctrine from 1996.

< Message edited by thewood1 -- 11/6/2020 11:51:52 PM >

(in reply to Battelman2)

Post #: 72

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? - 11/8/2020 6:23:21 AM

StellarRat

Posts: 188
Joined: 9/14/2009
Status: offline

I don't think the problem is the subs per se, but the AI that "runs" them. Based on my experience with the Silent Service scenarios I really can't see any way that an AI that is less intelligent than a human could get into torpedo range of any surface group with a decent ASW capability. IMO, the job of the surface AI is MUCH simpler than the AI sub commanders job. The surface AI just needs one good "ping" and it's either death for the sub or "run for you life" time. While a sub commander has to be supremely sneaky and plan every move (or lack thereof) with extreme care and at just the right depth, heading and speed to the just the right location at just the right time. Having lost many of the Silent Service scenarios multiple times it seems a bit much of a stretch to expect the AI to do much. I mean I don't think I'm a terrible player certainly not as good as some, but still better than the AI. I would always chose to micromanage my subs in the game. This is another reason I'm really looking forward to multiplayer.

< Message edited by StellarRat -- 11/8/2020 6:27:00 AM >

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 73

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? - 11/8/2020 3:33:24 PM

MH-60Deuce

Posts: 19
Joined: 3/26/2019
Status: offline

How is he a "SME" (what basically every guy in this forum is claiming to be) when he verdicts that everything is "spot on" but then agrees when improvements are suggested. Sounds to me more like that somebody specifically searched for an opinion butler to reaffirm that no real work is needed to be invested. Putting more than 5 minutes research into checking CMO�s sub warfare depiction would be too much professional and is more a "90s dev thing" better base the simulation on he said or she said and wildest dreams of "I am always right".

I think one problem is which became evident in this thread is that you guys are more interested in maintaining the upper hand in discussions rather than to aim for the truth in creating the best CMO sim possible. Most of us don�t give a nickel about being right or not, we just want to spent our time with a simulation that respects its promise. I would be happy if you would prove me wrong, that your sub sim is indeed spot on but this will not happen because you won�t find anything that will professional that will speak in your favour. Tired to have this juvenile videogamer discussions where the opposite is too lazy to do a research even a kid is able to do and educate itself before going full force into arguems. Again: everybody that ever came close to sub hunting knows that it isn�t "spot on".

And sure the Navy has nothing better to do than to stack the decks against specific units in an ex and sure we only train in shallow waters. Because that is so useful for evaluation of capabilities and procedures when a serious situation develops. We allow our carriers and escorts to get torpedoed by subs so in case they try it in real we can turn the table like Houdini and say "ha screwed you!".

Verdict: Submarine simulation in CMO is falling short.

< Message edited by MH-60Deuce -- 11/8/2020 3:52:02 PM >

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 74

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? - 11/8/2020 3:46:57 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

Well, thats one approach to participating in a debate. When I'm setting up my next forensics team, I know who to call first.

(in reply to MH-60Deuce)

Post #: 75

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? - 11/8/2020 3:53:43 PM

BDukes

Posts: 1695
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MH-60Deuce

How is he a "SME" (what basically every guy in this forum is claiming to be) when he verdicts that everything is "spot on" but then agrees when improvements are suggested. Sounds to me more like that somebody specifically searched for an opinion butler to reaffirm that no real work is needed to be invested. Putting more than 5 minutes research into checking CMO�s sub warfare depiction would be too much professional and is more a "90s dev thing" better base the simulation on he said or she said and wildest dreams of "I am always right".

I think one problem is which became evident in this thread is that you guys are more interested in maintaining the "WE ARE RIGHT" upper hand in discussions rather than to aim for the truth in creating the best CMO sim possible. I don�t give a nickel about being right or not, also don�t give a nickel about your attitude, just want to spent my time with a simulation that respects its promise. I would be happy if you would prove me wrong that your sub sim is indeed spot on but this will not happen as I and pretty sure you aswell now that CMO is nowhere spot on in the sub warfare. But whatever I am tired to have this juvenile videogamer discussions where the opposite is too damn lazy to do a research even a 4th grader is able to do and simply educate itself before shouting "nOo NoO you WrOnG". Everybody that ever came close to sub hunting knows that it isn�t spot on.

And sure the Navy has nothing better to do than to stack the decks against this or that service in an excercise. Because that is so useful for evaluation of capabilities and procedures. We allow our carriers and escorts to get torpedoed by subs so when they try it in real we can suddenly surprise turn the table and say "ha screwed you!". Btw we just invest billions into fast attacks because they�re useless but look cool and the earth is flat.

Verdict stands: submarine warfare in CMO is on World of Warship level, or likely even below because I�ve heard (from a SME) that in WOW subs at least have some use.

Don't let anybody upset you so much to give them power. The guys that come in bad faith consistently show it and smart people sort it out pretty quick. They think the imaginary judge and jury will give them bozo button for defending the dev from a threat that is largely in their own mind. Maybe true, maybe not. It is what it is. Learn to laugh at insecurity.

The devs come in good faith. Best to just state issues, back with data and treat with the respect you expect. They will be good to you in my experience.

Best of luck and be happy. It is a fun game.

< Message edited by BDukes -- 11/8/2020 3:54:28 PM >

(in reply to MH-60Deuce)

Post #: 76

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? - 11/8/2020 3:55:37 PM

BDukes

Posts: 1695
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Well, thats one approach to participating in a debate. When I'm setting up my next forensics team, I know who to call first.

I don't think smart people perceive you the way you think they do. Stop egging people on for your own enjoyment.

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 77

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? - 11/8/2020 4:09:00 PM

MH-60Deuce

Posts: 19
Joined: 3/26/2019
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Well, thats one approach to participating in a debate. When I'm setting up my next forensics team, I know who to call first.

Won�t happen as you never will set up a forensics or any team. Individuals with such responsibilities are eager to contribute qualified and evaluated information instead of preaching to the choir, always cluttering discussions with false claims, and accumulating 5000 posts of hot air enough to make a giant baloon airworthy in no time.

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 78

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? - 11/8/2020 4:13:06 PM

BDukes

Posts: 1695
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MH-60Deuce

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Well, thats one approach to participating in a debate. When I'm setting up my next forensics team, I know who to call first.

Won�t happen as you never will set up a forensics or any team. Individuals with such responsibilities are eager to contribute qualified and evaluated information instead of preaching to the choir, always cluttering discussions with false claims, and accumulating 5000 posts of hot air enough to make a giant baloon airworthy in no time.

Just giving the air to breathe. Let it go and start working toward solution if you think is problem.

Thank!

(in reply to MH-60Deuce)

Post #: 79

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? - 11/8/2020 4:44:05 PM

ultradave

Posts: 1355
Joined: 8/20/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarechalJoffre

.... I just fail to see submarines being effective in any scenario except the ones that are specifically designed for them. Even then, they feel too weak.

IMO this is an underrated comment from back toward the beginning of this. You could change it to real life by substituting "mission" for "scenario".

Dave

_____________________________

----------------
Dave A.
"When the Boogeyman goes to sleep he checks his closet for paratroopers"

(in reply to MarechalJoffre)

Post #: 80

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? - 11/8/2020 4:59:12 PM

MH-60Deuce

Posts: 19
Joined: 3/26/2019
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BDukes
Let it go and start working toward solution if you think is problem

Yes lets do that and return to the topic, otherwise it will give them good reason to lock this down and call it a day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BDukes
Don't let anybody upset you so much to give them power. The guys that come in bad faith consistently show it and smart people sort it out pretty quick. They think the imaginary judge and jury will give them bozo button for defending the dev from a threat that is largely in their own mind. Maybe true, maybe not. It is what it is. Learn to laugh at insecurity.

The devs come in good faith. Best to just state issues, back with data and treat with the respect you expect. They will be good to you in my experience.

Best of luck and be happy. It is a fun game.

It doesn�t look like they are really interested to improve their sub warfare. So I do not expect much and its not my job to convince them.

Nevertheless your post has a point, thanks and be happy too.

So to put it into practice:

quote:

ORIGINAL: ultradave

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarechalJoffre
.... I just fail to see submarines being effective in any scenario except the ones that are specifically designed for them. Even then, they feel too weak.

IMO this is an underrated comment from back toward the beginning of this. You could change it to real life by substituting "mission" for "scenario".

exactly this

< Message edited by MH-60Deuce -- 11/8/2020 5:04:39 PM >

(in reply to BDukes)

Post #: 81

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? - 11/8/2020 6:11:39 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MH-60Deuce

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Well, thats one approach to participating in a debate. When I'm setting up my next forensics team, I know who to call first.

Won�t happen as you never will set up a forensics or any team. Individuals with such responsibilities are eager to contribute qualified and evaluated information instead of preaching to the choir, always cluttering discussions with false claims, and accumulating 5000 posts of hot air enough to make a giant baloon airworthy in no time.

I would point out I set up debate teams for a living. SO there is that. You want my LinkedIn profile, PM me. More than happy to supply.

(in reply to MH-60Deuce)

Post #: 82

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? - 11/8/2020 6:18:05 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MH-60Deuce

How is he a "SME" (what basically every guy in this forum is claiming to be) when he verdicts that everything is "spot on" but then agrees when improvements are suggested. Sounds to me more like that somebody specifically searched for an opinion butler to reaffirm that no real work is needed to be invested. Putting more than 5 minutes research into checking CMO�s sub warfare depiction would be too much professional and is more a "90s dev thing" better base the simulation on he said or she said and wildest dreams of "I am always right".

I think one problem is which became evident in this thread is that you guys are more interested in maintaining the upper hand in discussions rather than to aim for the truth in creating the best CMO sim possible. Most of us don�t give a nickel about being right or not, we just want to spent our time with a simulation that respects its promise. I would be happy if you would prove me wrong, that your sub sim is indeed spot on but this will not happen because you won�t find anything that will professional that will speak in your favour. Tired to have this juvenile videogamer discussions where the opposite is too lazy to do a research even a kid is able to do and educate itself before going full force into arguems. Again: everybody that ever came close to sub hunting knows that it isn�t "spot on".

And sure the Navy has nothing better to do than to stack the decks against specific units in an ex and sure we only train in shallow waters. Because that is so useful for evaluation of capabilities and procedures when a serious situation develops. We allow our carriers and escorts to get torpedoed by subs so in case they try it in real we can turn the table like Houdini and say "ha screwed you!".

Verdict: Submarine simulation in CMO is falling short.

So I noticed you want to suddenly get back to topic. Of course after dropping something in the forum that insults almost every person in the thread, including the devs. You're the only one claiming to be the SME here. And your high pitched whine is making hard to hear exactly what you are saying.

As with most debates on this forum, its not about who's right and who's wrong. Its about making sure people with less experience with the game don't suddenly come in and say its broken. Its about making sure the devs can focus on issues that are clear and important. The other thread calling one of the tutorials terrible is a great example. It ended up having some more experienced players coming and showing how it can be won.

I'm not sure why you would take it so personally as to come in and insult a bunch of people and directly question their devs' motives. When you yourself came in claiming to be an SME, with no proof. When asked to work with the devs, suddenly, you become very shy.

(in reply to MH-60Deuce)

Post #: 83

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? - 11/8/2020 6:19:33 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

I'll also point out that I'm the only one who took the time to run some tests. So, based on the tests, where do you see the issue?

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 84

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? - 11/8/2020 6:45:33 PM

BDukes

Posts: 1695
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

quote:

ORIGINAL: MH-60Deuce

How is he a "SME" (what basically every guy in this forum is claiming to be) when he verdicts that everything is "spot on" but then agrees when improvements are suggested. Sounds to me more like that somebody specifically searched for an opinion butler to reaffirm that no real work is needed to be invested. Putting more than 5 minutes research into checking CMO�s sub warfare depiction would be too much professional and is more a "90s dev thing" better base the simulation on he said or she said and wildest dreams of "I am always right".

I think one problem is which became evident in this thread is that you guys are more interested in maintaining the upper hand in discussions rather than to aim for the truth in creating the best CMO sim possible. Most of us don�t give a nickel about being right or not, we just want to spent our time with a simulation that respects its promise. I would be happy if you would prove me wrong, that your sub sim is indeed spot on but this will not happen because you won�t find anything that will professional that will speak in your favour. Tired to have this juvenile videogamer discussions where the opposite is too lazy to do a research even a kid is able to do and educate itself before going full force into arguems. Again: everybody that ever came close to sub hunting knows that it isn�t "spot on".

And sure the Navy has nothing better to do than to stack the decks against specific units in an ex and sure we only train in shallow waters. Because that is so useful for evaluation of capabilities and procedures when a serious situation develops. We allow our carriers and escorts to get torpedoed by subs so in case they try it in real we can turn the table like Houdini and say "ha screwed you!".

Verdict: Submarine simulation in CMO is falling short.

So I noticed you want to suddenly get back to topic. Of course after dropping something in the forum that insults almost every person in the thread, including the devs. You're the only one claiming to be the SME here. And your high pitched whine is making hard to hear exactly what you are saying.

As with most debates on this forum, its not about who's right and who's wrong. Its about making sure people with less experience with the game don't suddenly come in and say its broken. Its about making sure the devs can focus on issues that are clear and important. The other thread calling one of the tutorials terrible is a great example. It ended up having some more experienced players coming and showing how it can be won.

I'm not sure why you would take it so personally as to come in and insult a bunch of people and directly question their devs' motives. When you yourself came in claiming to be an SME, with no proof. When asked to work with the devs, suddenly, you become very shy.

You are explaining what goes on in your head when you read a post as if it is true and all other think same. This is not true. I do not think people take offense as much as you do. Probably have a different focus. Perhaps take a breath and consider.

Thank

Bill

< Message edited by BDukes -- 11/8/2020 6:47:27 PM >

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 85

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? - 11/8/2020 6:55:29 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

I don't care what other people think. It sure seems like you care what I think.

(in reply to BDukes)

Post #: 86

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? - 11/8/2020 7:04:40 PM

BDukes

Posts: 1695
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I don't care what other people think. It sure seems like you care what I think.

I think our conversation has run its course. Have a nice week Mr. Wood.

Bill

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 87

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? - 11/8/2020 7:29:29 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

I'm not even sure why you were in here. I hope the mods reach out to you for any help you need.

(in reply to BDukes)

Post #: 88

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? - 11/8/2020 7:43:12 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

As stated before the psychologists showed up, lets get back to the topic. I am reposting the tests I ran on sub performance in a highly unrealistic scenario. There are no helos, flanking ships, satellites, etc. Its mano a mano, ship vs. sub style.

This seems pretty good from the sub's perspective. A mid-tech diesel vs possibly the most modern surface ship available. The sub could have killed the ship well before detection in most of these tests. The question is would the sub survive. The tests I ran showed that the sub survives most of them. Mainly because the Burke turns runs at flank before it can localize the sub. In one or two, the Burke got off a shot down the bearing and killed the Kilo eventually. So again, for the people claiming to be SMEs, where is the problem. I have already stated I am an amateur. So tell me how this is supposed to be different.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 89

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? - 11/8/2020 11:11:56 PM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

I like your tests because they illustrate how important the water depth is to sub detectability. The (relatively) shallow water environment might be described as "bottom limited" depending on what the transmission loss (TL) curves look like. That's really where submarines shine. Out in the opened ocean, TL is more favorable to the surface combatant and that makes the submarine's work harder but not necessarily impossible. 5-6 nm is an easy shot for most modern torpedoes. It also means that the submarine can remain safely outside of VLA range (in the case of an Arleigh Burke) and fire before being detected. That's awesome for the sub.

< Message edited by SeaQueen -- 11/8/2020 11:12:30 PM >

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 90