[Logged] Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Tech Support



Message

MarechalJoffre -> [Logged] Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (10/31/2020 11:46:57 PM)

In my experience, in most combined arms scenarios subs always get slapped by helos and aircraft employing sonobuoys. It is almost impossible to get into torpedo range without getting detected by something. Which makes submarine torpedoes of questionable importance, you're usually better off firing a couple anti-ship missiles.

I'm not saying submarines should be invisible, but they are detected a bit too easily in my opinion. In real life exercises getting a fix on adversary submarines have always proven to be extremely tough. So much so that subs often have to employ shaft shakers and other kinds of noise makers to give the surface group a chance.

In CMO however, you get anywhere near a surface task group and you're instantly detected. Passive sonobuoys, dipping sonars or ship hull sonars. Near impossible to hide.

Is it me or are submarines a bit too underpowered in CMO? Or maybe ASW assets are too powerful?



JamesHunt -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/1/2020 1:04:43 AM)

I share this impression.



Battelman2 -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/1/2020 5:33:22 AM)

I've likewise noticed that hull sonar on surface combatants seem "too good" at detecting subs.

I recently had a Virginia-class SSN creep near a lone Udaloy and promptly get Orlan'd. I don't see how that should be possible without assistance from another platform.



cmanouser1 -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/1/2020 8:08:04 AM)



quote:

In CMO however, you get anywhere near a surface task group and you're instantly detected. Passive sonobuoys, dipping sonars or ship hull sonars. Near impossible to hide.



Not my experience at all, but you need to understand well the submarine mechanics. Doing the tutorials then the Silent Service campaign is a must in that regard.

Among other things:
* the closer you are to the surface group, the slower you travel
* play close attention to the speed of the surface group; the faster they go the faster you can go as it reduces their detection
* you only travel in 2 locations: inside the layer, or on the sea bottom if you can reach it, to minimize detection. Then, you periodically stop, peak above the layer at 0 kt, then go back to hide
* you don't want to get into torpedo range, you want the surface group to get in your range while you stay hidden at 0kt inside the layer (thus you need to predict where the group will be)

quote:


you're usually better off firing a couple anti-ship missiles.

I wouldn't say that, 1 torpedo can do the job of 60+ missiles on a surface group that has proper anti-missile defence



MH-60Deuce -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/1/2020 8:58:05 AM)

Submarine survivability has improved in Command but I still consider them hardly useful in many scenarios as they seem to be detected too easily.



quote:

ORIGINAL: cmanouser1
you need to understand well the submarine mechanics.
* you only travel in 2 locations: inside the layer, or on the sea bottom

I question the benefit of travelling inside the layer compared to below when facing a surface threat.
quote:

ORIGINAL: v1.0 manual, p.133
In-layer: Similar to above, the towed array hangs below the layer but the counter-detection reduction is not as great (sound has to go through a lot less to reach an enemy sensor). Also the unpredictable mixup of warm and cold water at this depth range significantly reduces detection ranges against other subs also in the layer




MarechalJoffre -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/1/2020 11:18:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cmanouser1
Not my experience at all, but you need to understand well the submarine mechanics. Doing the tutorials then the Silent Service campaign is a must in that regard.

Among other things:
* the closer you are to the surface group, the slower you travel
* play close attention to the speed of the surface group; the faster they go the faster you can go as it reduces their detection
* you only travel in 2 locations: inside the layer, or on the sea bottom if you can reach it, to minimize detection. Then, you periodically stop, peak above the layer at 0 kt, then go back to hide
* you don't want to get into torpedo range, you want the surface group to get in your range while you stay hidden at 0kt inside the layer (thus you need to predict where the group will be)

I have completed the tutorials twice, and played most of Silent Service scenarios to at least know what I am doing with submarines at this point. 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.

For example, I don't understand how an Udaloy could get a 6nmi active sonar fix on Virginia moving in the shadow zone at 5kts. Same goes for inside the layer. Try it out yourself.

You will get detected by a random sonobuoy, despite moving at tactical speeds (think 10-15kts) in a very quiet submarine like the Seawolf. Only a matter of seconds before dozens of Helix helis are hovering above and torpedoing you to oblivion. If this was how things worked in real life countries wouldn't be investing in submarines as much as they do today.

I invite you to play one of Northern Fury scenarios that involve subs (among other assets), or any other scenario with combined arms warfare present. You'll see how and why subs feel practically useless. CMO's instant C2 doesn't help much either in this regard.



cmanouser1 -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/1/2020 1:01:35 PM)


quote:


I question the benefit of travelling inside the layer compared to below when facing a surface threat.

Below the layer is the worst place if the surface threat has a TASS.

quote:

moving at tactical speeds (think 10-15kts)

This is really fast in my book. I'm moving around 5-8kt when close to threats, or even less.

quote:

If this was how things worked in real life countries wouldn't be investing in submarines as much as they do today.

Even if it is how things work in real life, there are many other reasons to have submarines beyond delivering torpedos to surface groups.



thewood1 -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/1/2020 1:25:55 PM)

My experience for myself and others I have seen play is that most people don't have the patience to play subs realistically. It takes a lot of attention to distance, depth, and speed. On top of that, knowing the environment you are in and will be in when you encounter the enemy is critical. Its a very slow game. If you are at 10 knots or over anywhere near a modern surface contact, you are just asking for trouble.

Except in heavily recon-ed or sanitized areas, I usually travel less than 10 knots. Anything over 10 knots requires frequent stopping/slowing to let your passives get a reading of the surrounding areas. Even a modern sub given orders to just blast through an enemy occupied area at over 10 knots won't last long. Of course enemy sensors, density, sea depth, etc. have an impact too.

Instead of just complaining about it, post a scenario at a point where you think something is off and let some people look at it.



Dimitris -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/1/2020 1:34:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarechalJoffre
For example, I don't understand how an Udaloy could get a 6nmi active sonar fix on Virginia moving in the shadow zone at 5kts. Same goes for inside the layer. Try it out yourself.

My first guess would be that the Udaloy's VDS (which is trailed just under the thermal layer) is picking you up. If you are right under the layer you are actually making it easier for him because the DSC greatly amplifies sound transmission (2x range bonus). You are better off going much deeper than the layer's floor or, if you want to hold contact with the ship, rise above the layer and stay away from the surface duct.

Switch to the Udaloy's side, select the contact that represents your sub, and see which sensors are detecting it.

If you are still adamant that something is 'off', feel free to post a save for investigation.

quote:


You will get detected by a random sonobuoy, despite moving at tactical speeds (think 10-15kts) in a very quiet submarine like the Seawolf. Only a matter of seconds before dozens of Helix helis are hovering above and torpedoing you to oblivion.

Do you try to actively avoid sonobuoys, helos & MPAs? A buoy close enough (especially an active one) will detect you even in a silent-as-a-tomb sub.



gsalvar -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/1/2020 2:17:21 PM)

Agree. I no longer play scenarios with submarines. No sense.



mikerohan -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/1/2020 2:41:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MarechalJoffre


I invite you to play one of Northern Fury scenarios that involve subs (among other assets), or any other scenario with combined arms warfare present. You'll see how and why subs feel practically useless. CMO's instant C2 doesn't help much either in this regard.


I'm not an expert with submarines. I have "Silent Service", but I know they are not my kind of scenarios.
So I'm saying this from my limited experience, particularly with the Fury scenarios: I too find that subs are "too easy" to find when you are looking for them but I think it **could** have something to do with the AI. They are given a general mission (patrol and hunt at a given area) but **maybe** the AI logic it's not as good at avoiding a net of sonobuoys, plus dipping sonars a the same time that it's trying to plot an interception path...

Of course in a one vs one situation it's easier to switch to the other side, as Dimitris says, and see a(and learns) the situation from the other end. I'm just referring to one **possibility** in medium sized scenarios where the submarines being managed by the computer seem to be not-that-diffcult to find if you pay attention to your patrols.

Uhmmm, maybe I'll get back to Silent Service in a couple of weeks [:D]



goldfinger35 -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/1/2020 2:54:10 PM)

If enemy ship only has a hull sonar: dive as deep as possible, creep or 0kts.

My testing vs enemy ship with active hull sonar, my sub as deep as possible:
-my electric sub is detected at 0-4 nm at 0kts

My testing vs enemy ship with passive hull sonar, my sub as deep as possible:
-my electric sub is detected at 3nm flank/2nm creep/0nm at 0kts
-my nuclear sub is detected at 4nm cruise/2nm creep/2nm at 0kts


If enemy ship has a VDS: dive to shallow, creep or 0kts:

My testing vs enemy ship with VDS, my sub at shallow:
-my electric sub is detected at 25nm flank/10nm cruise/6nm creep/0nm 0kts
-my nuclear sub is detected at 15nm cruise/10nm creep/5nm 0kts




MH-60Deuce -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/1/2020 4:23:32 PM)

A 100% increase in detection range between creep and 0kts sounds drastic to me. Isnīt the noise emitted by the ownship already higher than making revs for very low speeds?

Nevertheless sub detection in most scenarios is an absolute walk in the park and I have an hard time to take subs serious in most scenarios.






ultradave -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/1/2020 5:28:29 PM)

Active VDS and active sonobuoys will doom most submarines, while modern subs can hide fairly well from strictly passive sonar. Tried a couple of quick tests with Russian ships with VDS, and they detected VIRGINIAs at about 10nm as soon as they turned on their active VDS. But not before that. Same in reverse - Arleigh Burke using towed array only - hard time finding anything. Turn on the hull sonar (active), and boom, there's the Akula, about 5 miles away. This was just quick and dirty setups using the Quick Battle generator.

Against active sonar, it doesn't matter how whisper quiet a sub is.

Dave



goldfinger35 -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/1/2020 5:53:33 PM)

IMO the hardest thing when sneaking as a sub is to avoid passive sonobuoys; they are undetectable and in some missions target area is flooded with them,



SeaQueen -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/1/2020 8:56:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarechalJoffre
Is it me or are submarines a bit too underpowered in CMO? Or maybe ASW assets are too powerful?


Ugh... this is a really super complicated question. I'm going to try to answer it simply. The bottom-line up front is this:

It depends.

There are definitely things the CMO/CMANO gets wrong. I could enumerate them for you some time if you're interested, but it would get into a lot of engineering and oceanography. There are definitely things they could do things to improve the sonar model. The problem is that without corresponding improvements to the database information, I don't think that improved representation of sonar phenomenology would necessarily correspond to an improved ASW model overall. Almost all the database values are probably wonky. That's okay though, because there exists no opened-source data on any of these platforms. Actual sonar target strengths and passive source levels are classified, just like rcs data in the real world. You can sometimes guestimate it from basic physics, but these are likely to be very rough, and based on massive assumptions about everything from materials and internal structure to arguments by analogy (X is sort of like a Y, so we'll say they're equivalent and call it a day). They're quite rough.

The stories you hear in opened source about submarines being detected at whatever range are also completely useless for determining the sonar equation parameters necessary to actually model a given platform accurately. If they were useful for that purpose, they would be classified. Actually measuring those values requires a very detailed understanding of both the systems and oceanographic properties of the water column. Those are values to which the developers are not privy.

The other problem is that the ocean environment, and the sonar performance that goes with it, are highly variable. When you ask, "Can submarine X really be detected at range R?" the real answer is, that for all values of X and R, "Yes, sometimes." For the right conditions, you can probably get that detection range. Are those conditions modeled in CMO/CMANO? Sometimes... In the real world, every day sonar technicians on a ship or submarine will estimate the "range of the day," for that sonar against some target of interest. They usually do that based on a figure of merit (FOM). The problem with that is, the FOM gives you the median detection range. That means you've got even odds of detecting the target of interest both further away than the FOM suggests and closer, possibly much closer. Even then, that range of the day is a very very rough estimate. Because the ocean is a highly variable dynamic environment, by the time they arrive at that number it's probably already obsolete.

So are submarines underpowered? I don't have a cut and dry answer for that. It depends. Similarly, are ASW assets overpowered? There isn't really one answer for that either. I can say that historically, aircraft have been the absolute biggest killer of submarines. The issue has to do with what's called, "search rate." That they have a lot of sensors and can cover a lot of ground quickly. They can track and kill submarines and there's not a lot the submarines can do about it, besides either run or hide. Against aircraft, submarines are pretty decisively at a disadvantage.

There's another dimension to the ASW assets being overpowered. In commercial scenarios, people tend to pile everything on top of everything else in scenarios. This can be fun because everything happens very quickly, but in the case of ASW this screws everything up. A huge factor in ASW is space. A lot of what makes things stealthy is being a pinhead sized target in a relatively large space to hide in. It doesn't mean they CAN'T find you, but to do it they'll have to devote the effort. If the spatial extent of the scenario is too small, yeah, submarines are going to be found quickly and destroyed. The ocean is vast. There's a lot of space from which a submarine attack can originate. If you're only using a fraction of the space available, then you're not giving the submarines enough credit.

There's another problem. Scenario designers need to add in false targets, and they need to add in BELIEVABLE false targets that an experienced player isn't going to immediately recognize as a false target based on its behavior and immediately reallocate the ASW resource to the more credible threat. That means they have to move like a real target. They should also vastly outnumber the real targets. If I see 3 targets on my scope, I should know that most of them are probably false targets. If I spend time prosecuting them and drop my two torpedoes on them, I now need to send the helo back to be rearmed and refueled. That's time I can't use the helo to prosecute the real target that might be out there (possibly undetected).

Anyhow... I hope this helps answer your question.



BrianinMinnie -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/1/2020 10:45:04 PM)

Also do we ever hear in public, of the High end version of CMO being used to sim for ASW combat, it all seems Air\Sea combat. Land & ASW appear a afterthought. can anybody speak to the Hi-pref CMO versions capabilities, at least in a generalized sense?



SeaQueen -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/2/2020 12:27:03 AM)

I'm not sure what you mean by "high-end," or "high-pref" (sic?).

quote:

Also do we ever hear in public, of the High end version of CMO being used to sim for ASW combat, it all seems Air\Sea combat. Land & ASW appear a afterthought. can anybody speak to the Hi-pref CMO versions capabilities, at least in a generalized sense?



thewood1 -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/2/2020 12:55:47 AM)

I assume he means the professional edition.



Rory Noonan -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/2/2020 1:12:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BrianinMinnie

Also do we ever hear in public, of the High end version of CMO being used to sim for ASW combat, it all seems Air\Sea combat. Land & ASW appear a afterthought. can anybody speak to the Hi-pref CMO versions capabilities, at least in a generalized sense?


You won't hear in public the vast majority of what CPE is used for; it's the nature of the industry I'm afraid.



Rory Noonan -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/2/2020 3:21:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen
There's another dimension to the ASW assets being overpowered. In commercial scenarios, people tend to pile everything on top of everything else in scenarios. This can be fun because everything happens very quickly, but in the case of ASW this screws everything up. A huge factor in ASW is space. A lot of what makes things stealthy is being a pinhead sized target in a relatively large space to hide in. It doesn't mean they CAN'T find you, but to do it they'll have to devote the effort. If the spatial extent of the scenario is too small, yeah, submarines are going to be found quickly and destroyed. The ocean is vast. There's a lot of space from which a submarine attack can originate. If you're only using a fraction of the space available, then you're not giving the submarines enough credit.

There's another problem. Scenario designers need to add in false targets, and they need to add in BELIEVABLE false targets that an experienced player isn't going to immediately recognize as a false target based on its behavior and immediately reallocate the ASW resource to the more credible threat. That means they have to move like a real target. They should also vastly outnumber the real targets. If I see 3 targets on my scope, I should know that most of them are probably false targets. If I spend time prosecuting them and drop my two torpedoes on them, I now need to send the helo back to be rearmed and refueled. That's time I can't use the helo to prosecute the real target that might be out there (possibly undetected).

Anyhow... I hope this helps answer your question.


These two points are low hanging fruit for scenario designers; all of the standalone scenarios that have ASW elements and all of The Silent Service scenarios have randomly generated biologicals, and ~80% have randomised civilian or neutral ship (and often air) traffic too. The scripts are there to use and build on, go nuts with it!

Aside from false contacts requiring investigation/prosecution to identify, they also influence the chance of detection through sonar masking. In some of the harder TSS scenarios, there's a simple out: hide under one of the conveniently placed and routed merchant ships! This, added to random variations in sea state, rain and temperature all add to the unpredictability of sonar detections on both sides.

Finally, what is the benchmark of how well they should perform? There's been two officially recorded submarine kills since 1945; the ARA Belgrano in 1982 and the INS Khukri in 1971, and a few noted foul-ups with torpedoes clanging into the side of targets (Argentian attack on a UK Frigate in 1982) and lots of misses (1971; lots of misses and lots of conjecture about losses!) Note that in both cases the targets had weak sonar, and by the captain's own admission PNS Hangor only barely survived the retaliatory search and destroy operation--Belgrano's escorts had such poor acoustic awareness that they weren't aware it had sunk until hours later.

Usually in video games you'll take control of an SSN or two and expect to slaughter a peer adversary surface group and escape unharmed, the history just doesn't match up to that though. Does that mean that Command subs are at an unfair disadvantage to their real world counterparts? Or is it that we're simulating very different engagements?

As always we're keen to make improvements, just let us know what they are.



DWReese -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/2/2020 8:05:26 AM)

quote:

You won't hear in public the vast majority of what CPE is used for; it's the nature of the industry I'm afraid.


Rory,

I'm sure that what you say is true, but why would ASW be programmed to work any differently in both versions (pro and commercial) of CMO? As devs, you would drive yourself absolutely insane trying to maintain TWO different versions of ASW tactics and programming. You would be constantly jumping back and forth, and it makes no sense.

Additionally, if the two versions were vastly different, then you would know EXACTLY what the OP is talking about because his point would be validated by that fact.

So, while you won't publically discuss it, logically speaking, the two versions are likely very similar in the manner that they work with CMO.




MarechalJoffre -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/2/2020 8:25:09 AM)

I have been checking out discussions online about this topic. Pretty much every bit of evidence (non-classified that is) hints at subs being a bit too easy to detect in CMO. Shadow zone, for example, is an almost suicidal place to stay in CMO even though real life exercises show it can often be the most advantageous place to be against a surface vessel.

While I've been asked to provide a save, as this is not a specific bug or scenario related issue I don't see how I can illustrate it any better than how CMO already does with community/DLC sub scenarios.



SeaQueen -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/2/2020 9:31:56 AM)

The presence of merchant shipping in a war zone is a subject of much debate. The issue is insurance. If the balloon goes up, so does Lloydes of London's insurance rates for the cargos on all the merchant shipping in world that passes through the warzone. The power of that company is pretty awesome. That will most likely force the big container ships, tankers and others that dominate the global economy into taking the long way around and avoiding the area. What probably won't go away would be smaller local commercial fishing boats, ferries, other vessels essential to local survival. Cruise missiles will lock on to those too. In some places (The Arabian Gulf) it's impossible for the insurance company to tell them, "go around." That's when people start talking about convoys.

But yes, blending into the shipping lanes and staying close to a ship is a tactic if they're there. The problem is that very often places of military interest aren't always in the shipping lanes. That often forces the submarines to come out of the noise.



SeaQueen -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/2/2020 9:57:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese
So, while you won't publically discuss it, logically speaking, the two versions are likely very similar in the manner that they work with CMO.


CPE is unclassified and yes, it's almost the same. The biggest difference anymore is data collection. That's unclassified and public information. A lot of people assume that whatever the defense world relies on must be some kind of supercharged version of the commercial game, and it's just not true. There's other features that allow defense users to better make use of the data they have available to them, but on a practical basis, it's the same game.



DWReese -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/2/2020 11:47:02 AM)

quote:

CPE is unclassified and yes, it's almost the same.


SeaQueen,

As always, I appreciate your insight.

If the two versions are essentially the same with regard to programming HOW something acts, or responds to an action, then it would hold true that whatever issues that the OP has cited in the commercial version are likely present with the professional version as well.

Now, if a military entity that is using the simulation changes the information in the database to make a sub more stealthy by a certain amount to mirror THEIR actual data, then we (commercial gamers) obviously wouldn't have that information, therefore we would have no idea how things would play out.

That sort of presents a bit of a conundrum for game company. If they become aware that a military group believes that a sub (for instance) should be rated as "X minus 5", instead of merely "X" (as it is presented in the game), then they (the game company) would know that the data in their game is under-valued. So, at what point do they make a change, or want to make a change to the database based on their "newly acquired" data to better reflect reality? It's an interesting topic.






Dimitris -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/2/2020 3:32:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarechalJoffre
Shadow zone, for example, is an almost suicidal place to stay in CMO even though real life exercises show it can often be the most advantageous place to be against a surface vessel.


The shadow zone, as defined in the image you linked to (I have a slightly different definition of "shadow zone"; the area between the limit of direct-path detection and the first CZ) can indeed help a submarine hide pretty effectively IF the only sonar sensor available is the hull-mounted type, as in that image.

You can indeed test this in Command right now; place a quiet sub under a strong thermal layer and try to hunt it with a ship that has only a hull sonar.

Variable-depth sonars (VDS) and towed arrays (TA), OTOH, are explicitly designed to hang under the thermal layer, preferably just under it in order to exploit the deep sound channel (DSC). This not only neutralizes the "shadow zone" but in fact boosts the detection range significantly if the target is also in the DSC.

You can, again, test this right now by hunting the same quiet sub, at the same depth, but this time with a VDS- or TA-equipped ship.

Please have a look at the CMO manual, section 9.2.3 (Submarine Combat) and especially p.235 (Understanding depth bands and the thermal layer).

Thanks!



SeaQueen -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/2/2020 6:16:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese
If they become aware that a military group believes that a sub (for instance) should be rated as "X minus 5", instead of merely "X" (as it is presented in the game), then they (the game company) would know that the data in their game is under-valued. So, at what point do they make a change, or want to make a change to the database based on their "newly acquired" data to better reflect reality? It's an interesting topic.


The guys would never know that. They're not privy to that information. That sort of thing would be strictly a no-no, for multiple reasons, and not just security classification issues. There's also international trade in arms regulations (ITAR), for example, which are quite broad and shockingly easy to run up against. Because of that, that information wouldn't necessarily even have to be classified. *YIKES!*

Aside from the analytical utility, part of the purpose of database editing in CPE is to allow government organizations to use their own data, so that Warfaresims and Slytherine doesn't need to touch any of that. They're completely uninvolved. They provide the software and it's up to the government and contractors to use it to the best of their ability. The government doesn't give it to them, and they don't want it. That protects everyone involved, so that the only people who have information are people who are supposed to have it.

I generally don't like to talk about business here, but I think it's important for people to understand that the guys aren't withholding anything from you. They aren't artificially breaking things. They do a great job of trying to figure things out using opened source data and provide a really unique and high quality product for our enjoyment. Is it perfect? No, but it's pretty good. They're very committed to making it better.

I think it's also important to understand that the guys are learning this stuff too. They're not experts. I know experts. I've even been accused of being one from time to time. I can nerd out about the technical details Command doesn't include and why they're important ad infinitum. From what I've seen, the guys are opened to that discussion. That's how Command evolves. They've got a to-do list twenty miles long at this point. If they were experts they wouldn't have built Command. They'd have built something else infinitely more boring. There's so many computer programs out there you've probably never heard of that are tools developed by experts. The thing that makes Command awesome, fundamentally, is that a bunch of geeks from all over the world got together on the internet and decided to build the game they wanted to play, and they did it, and it was good!

That's amazing! It's a privilege to be a piece of that endeavor.



MarechalJoffre -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/2/2020 7:43:13 PM)

Alright, here are the results of a quick test that I did.

Burke was able to get BOTH active and passive detection at 10 NMIs(!) on two Virginias moving at 5kts. One inside the layer and other at the bottom. Way beyond their torpedo range.

Burke was moving at 20kts(!), cavitating and sea state is 5! You'd imagine its ownship noise (flow noise as well) would drown out any passive detection but there you go. Not to mention the rain and storms. You can replicate this with many other vessels, including aircraft and sonobuoys. Is this really realistic? Come on.

Getting into torpedoing range of any surface group is a sure of way committing suicide in CMO. You will get detected. I understand that exact data may not be available to public, but I've linked several discussions about this and I struggle to believe this is an accurate representation.



thewood1 -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/2/2020 7:56:00 PM)

Can you please, please, please put the scenario up? There are just too many variables to try making a point with just a screenshot. Also note what version you are using.

Posting that you don't believe any aspect of the game is useless without a save. Well, other than maybe making you feel better.



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8125