CMANO players' opinions on realism in Cold Waters

[ppitm]

Apologies if this verges on off-topic, but I specifically want to hear the opinions of CMANO players who are knowledgeable about subs.

Is Cold Waters comparable to CMANO is realism, or does the game tend towards the arcade?

I ask because I have seen gameplay videos of Los Angeles class subs essentially 'dogfighting' with torpedoes that sidle along at speeds that are barely faster than the sub itself. Then they survive direct hits with just some flooding and component damage. In CMANO, you would almost certainly be dead in that situation.

The torpedo evasion reminds me a lot of the silly SAM chase scene in Behind Enemy Lines.

[1nutworld]

I've not had the chance to purchase or play Cold Waters yet. It's on my list of "to-do's" for the summer. That being said, from what I've read and seen, Cold Waters will not come close to the realism of CMANO, and it isn't designed to be.

It's kinda like comparing the PC version for Madden to the PC version of GTA. Both are games for the PC, and both are games and that is where the similarities end.

[CCIP-subsim]

It's a game. I don't think that's a bad thing, and I think it's a great game design at that. But its aims are fundamentally different from CMANO or even something like Dangerous Waters, so it's not a fair comparison.

IMHO, we shouldn't forget that while for a CMANO player realism might be everything, you also need "gateways" to draw players in and just enjoyable, good-looking games for people who don't have months to study technical subjects. I probably won't be spending very much time playing it in the long term. But I also wouldn't be here if it were not for the mid-90s flight sim equivalents of Cold Waters - and I hope for more games like this in the future [:)]

[SeaQueen]

I've said it once, and I'll say it again:

Damage modeling is a squishy subject at best, particularly for submarines which are surprisingly robust in many respects, but on the other hand if the right pipe breaks at the right depth, they could go straight to the bottom with surprisingly little damage. Reflecting this accurately is difficult, not least because the actually parameters for the distribution governing reliability are not public domain and never will be.

In the commercial world, there is always a tension between what is entertaining and what may be realistic but not fun. In commercial "simulations" the entertainment value is in providing some insight into real defense issues. Much of the data is taken from credible public domain sources. Other data reflects opinions and anecdotes from knowledgeable (and sometimes not so knowledgeable) people. Other data really is simply made up because the real numbers might not exist in the public domain, if at all.

So simulations should be taken with a grain of salt (even very good ones). The insights they provide are uncertain, but that's okay. When you read in Aviation Weekly that 5th Gen and 4th Gen fighters are totally different, simulations let you experiment with what that might mean. If your answer the only one? Probably not. Is it the right one? Who knows? That's okay. It's your sandbox. Play in it.

ORIGINAL: ppitm

Apologies if this verges on off-topic, but I specifically want to hear the opinions of CMANO players who are knowledgeable about subs.

Is Cold Waters comparable to CMANO is realism, or does the game tend towards the arcade?

I ask because I have seen gameplay videos of Los Angeles class subs essentially 'dogfighting' with torpedoes that sidle along at speeds that are barely faster than the sub itself. Then they survive direct hits with just some flooding and component damage. In CMANO, you would almost certainly be dead in that situation.

The torpedo evasion reminds me a lot of the silly SAM chase scene in Behind Enemy Lines.

[HalfLifeExpert]

It is not easy to compare CMANO and Cold Waters, as the former is a full spectrum simulation of a vast array of platforms on various levels all over the world, while the latter is a simulator of commanding a single USN Nuclear Attack Submarine in the North Atlantic during a Third World War with the Warsaw Pact. More fair comparisons might be made like this:

CMANO compared to Computer Harpoon or Jane's Fleet Command

Cold Waters compared to Dangerous Waters or 688i Hunter/Killer.

But in the end, CMANO is overall more realistic than Cold Waters, even though the two cannot be compared fairly

That being said,

The word "arcadey" has been applied to Cold Waters, but that is a completely insulting mischaracterization. It is not Dangerous Waters or 688i, it is much simpler than that. This is a good thing in the sense that it will be appealing to a larger crowd that may be put off by the complexity of Dangerous Waters. DW is an excellent sim no doubt, but it is very complex.

I definitely call Cold Waters a submarine simulator, but it takes a different approach than most other sub sims. Whereas many sub sims allow you to take control of the various stations, Cold Waters basically puts you in the captain's position. That basically means you are not dealing with the minute details of the operations of your submarine in terms of TMA and sonar, but you can help out the Sonar guys with identifying contacts if you want, it's optional.

An argument can be made that this is actually a more realistic approach, as the captain is concerned more with where the enemy is and how to fight, not the details of the TMA and sonar systems, that's why there are trained personnel to operate those systems and inform the captain of what they are detecting.

Regarding Damage, I agree that surviving one solid torpedo hit may not be very likely, but I think this is somewhat acceptable as it is harrowing and stressful enough just avoiding the torpedo in the first place, and usually the damage you take means you should try to get out of there if possible. The main realism flaw I see in in Campaign, where it is too easy to attempt to abandon ship and get rescued.

But then again, there hasn't been any real world instances of a modern SSN being struck by a live torpedo, so we might not be able to say for sure how survivable the Los Angeles Class is. The Perry Frigates surprised many on how much damage they took in the Tanker War (the Stark and the Samuel B Roberts). A submarine hit is more dangerous, but without any actual real world cases, it is hard to say how tough modern SSNs are for sure.

[Rhygin00]

I'm not so sure that the CMANO sound model is better than Cold Waters. Cold Waters has shadow zones, convergence zones(1), variety in sound conditions (ice, coastal surf), bottom bounce etc, what does CMANO have what it doesn't?

The CMANO sound model is quite opaque to me. What is this thick layer, where sound propagation is reduced to the same degree the whole way down to the deep sound channel? Haven't seen it anywhere but in CMANO. Isn't the change in sound velocity gradual? What does layer strength mean in CMANO? Why are there no areas without a layer? Would love to see what sound velocity profiles CMANO uses!

My impression is that the CMANO sound model is rather simplified at the moment, while designed to be optionally much more in depth (pun intended), which it maybe already is in the pro version. Or maybe I'm completely wrong, and it's so deep that I don't get it. Lost in the sound channel so to speak. [:D]


(1) According to Jive Turkey, Cold Waters youtuber who was a sonarman on multiple USN nuclear subs (according to himself). His sound tutorial: link

[ppitm]

This is an amazing forum. [;)][:D]

The internet is supposed to be a place where anonymous people emphatically share strong opinions, but here people trip over themselves out of an effort to be judicious and avoid overstatement.

I'll rephrase my question:

Is the anti-sub torpedo performance and evasion exaggerated for the sake of drama?

[Dimitris]

I'm having a lot of fun with CW, while recognizing its limitations.

My impression from the negative feedback I've seen about it is that many people confuse the notion of "this game is bad" with "this game is not what I expected".

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: Rhygin00

I'm not so sure that the CMANO sound model is better than Cold Waters. Cold Waters has shadow zones, convergence zones(1), variety in sound conditions (ice, coastal surf), bottom bounce etc, what does CMANO have what it doesn't?

All of these and more. See the manual and the manual addendum pages.

The CMANO sound model is quite opaque to me.

The physics that it represents aren't.

What is this thick layer, where sound propagation is reduced to the same degree the whole way down to the deep sound channel? Haven't seen it anywhere but in CMANO. Isn't the change in sound velocity gradual? What does layer strength mean in CMANO? Why are there no areas without a layer? Would love to see what sound velocity profiles CMANO uses!

If you put the sound-propagation sections of the CMANO and CW manuals side by side you will see they are remarkably similar, as they are describing the same physics principles. They may model propagation a bit differently than we do but we both model the same RL mechanics.

My impression is that the CMANO sound model is rather simplified at the moment, while designed to be optionally much more in depth (pun intended), which it maybe already is in the pro version. Or maybe I'm completely wrong, and it's so deep that I don't get it. Lost in the sound channel so to speak. [:D]

Yes, you are wrong. It's OK though. Peace.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: ppitm
Is the anti-sub torpedo performance and evasion exaggerated for the sake of drama?

Who knows. It's not like we have a vast experience pool of RL modern sub-vs-sub actions to draw conclusions from.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: ppitm
This is an amazing forum. [;)][:D]

The internet is supposed to be a place where anonymous people emphatically share strong opinions, but here people trip over themselves out of an effort to be judicious and avoid overstatement.

Please don't bait. Thanks.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: CCIPsubsim
IMHO, we shouldn't forget that while for a CMANO player realism might be everything, you also need "gateways" to draw players in and just enjoyable, good-looking games for people who don't have months to study technical subjects. I probably won't be spending very much time playing it in the long term. But I also wouldn't be here if it were not for the mid-90s flight sim equivalents of Cold Waters - and I hope for more games like this in the future [:)]

^^^ That.

The genre needs games like CW as much as games like CMANO.

[Dysta]

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

ORIGINAL: ppitm
This is an amazing forum. [;)][:D]

The internet is supposed to be a place where anonymous people emphatically share strong opinions, but here people trip over themselves out of an effort to be judicious and avoid overstatement.

Please don't bait. Thanks.

I am distinctively certain he's unintentional at this part. We did tried to put our thoughts into this game based on our CMANO experience, and he got what he wanted. It's still a mistake to address that openly, that could twist our opinions for sure.

[Lowlaner2012]

Had a look at CW and decided its not for me, but Im sure others will probably like it, my other game for naval action is Steam and Iron the North Sea campaign...

Cheers

[wild_Willie2]

I have spend several hours watching CW gameplay and and it's already getting a bit boring, the difficulty is just not there. I also find the torpedo dodging game mechanics dubious (you visually search for the torpedo's in third person camera view and then try to outmaneuver them like trying to dodge a missile in a fighter [X(][X(]). The physics behind the game and sonar model might be quite realistic, but its torpedo dodging arcade content is just a bit to high for me. I much more prefer the CMANO model where evading a well placed torpedo is much more a matter of luck and countermeasures then simply "outmaneuvering" the weapon with your sub.

Although I do like the idea of underwater knuckle formation in order to evade the active sonar of incoming weapons. This might be something for Command to implement in order to create some more skill based randomness in AS warfare.

W.

[Hongjian]

I like the sonar and acoustic model of CW. But the rest is kinda "casual".

Not a bad game, though.

But the things mentioned make it indeed a Game, while CMANO is not really a game.

[ExNusquam]

CW is an interesting mix of very realistic simulations and arcade gameplay. The sonar model (as far as I can tell) is phenomenal, as is the Russian AI (role division and general aggressiveness). The dynamic campaign is a neat feature, if a bit repetitive. However, as other's have mentioned, the gameplay itself is a bit arcade-y. The Auto-TMA removes almost any player indication of the sonar model at work, and the possibility of visually dodging torpedoes is a bit ridiculous (as players of dangerous waters will attest to).

Overall, it's a fun game, and something I'll probably keep installed for the foreseeable future. It won't replace C:MANO for me, and won't get nearly the same number of hours.

[Rhygin00]

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

All of these and more. See the manual and the manual addendum pages.


Yes, you are wrong. It's OK though. Peace.

Outstanding! Thanks, this clears things up a lot.

[leo321]

I´m having a lot of fun too, for one arcade

Still have a lot of bugs, but maybe be better in the future.

[Cik]

i think it's reasonably realistic. the only part i consider unrealistic is the "underwater SA-2 dodges" that is to say, if you run high ballast high planes and then break into the mis- i mean torpedo you can dodge it 100% of the time.

which, granted i'm not totally sure about how maneuverable 1980~ soviet torpedoes were but i doubt they were less maneuverable than an enormous iron whale of a sub.