"I completed the following scenarios on my first try, perhaps being more cavalier, daring to run at Cruise or even Full speed closing in on an enemy sub as long as I could keep the layers in my favour (and being wary of staying out from under the layer if the target had a towed array)."
This what I talked about in the other sub complaint thread. Players just get impatient. I actually don't play a lot of ASW-focused scenarios because I can't stand staring at the screen. If there is one type of scenario that you can't cut corners in, its ASW scenarios, from either perspective.
Submarine Tutorial 1.4
Moderator: MOD_Command
RE: Submarine Tutorial 1.4 (terrible scenario)
It's not a matter of impatience unless the scenario is (arguably unrealistically, outside of a tutorial) built for permanent creeping. Sometimes you need to catch up with things. My cavalier dashes didn't get my sub detected, so I ultimately disagree with dcpollay's statement that the basic tenets can't be pushed.ORIGINAL: thewood1
This what I talked about in the other sub complaint thread. Players just get impatient. I actually don't play a lot of ASW-focused scenarios because I can't stand staring at the screen. If there is one type of scenario that you can't cut corners in, its ASW scenarios, from either perspective.
Within any given circumstances where enemy presence isn't overwhelming, there are more liberal combinations of depth and speed which are relatively safe at certain times, and sometimes they're even necessary. Of course the general circumstances change, but it's always system versus system, with distance/depth plus thermocline quirks in the way, and little else.
I'll have to grudgingly accept that the game won't help me uncover the details, and it'll be a matter of copious trial and error.
RE: Submarine Tutorial 1.4 (terrible scenario)
Its mostly playing through all the tutorials and smaller scenarios, as well as not getting bent out of shape because the scenario beat you.
RE: Submarine Tutorial 1.4 (terrible scenario)
To be clear, I'm not bent out of shape. I'm not disparaging the game. CMO is great.ORIGINAL: thewood1
Its mostly playing through all the tutorials and smaller scenarios, as well as not getting bent out of shape because the scenario beat you.
I'm just highlighting an area which I believe could be improved: dynamic, actionable information in regards to detectability.
And I should best leave it at that.
RE: Submarine Tutorial 1.4 (terrible scenario)
So when did you change the title of the thread and remove the "Terrible Scenario" comment. So lets not leave it at that. I think it was still up as of this morning. That seems to be a pretty text book example of getting bent out of shape. Pretty insulting comment for a scenario designer to hear.
RE: Submarine Tutorial 1.4 (terrible scenario)
I did get frustrated at first because I thought the game was demanding something very difficult to achieve with imperfect intel on a first try (a baffles shot). Then I realized I was wrong (publicly saying so), and my remark was unfair, so at the very least I removed its mention from the title. I'll probably remove the same remark from the end of my first post too.ORIGINAL: thewood1
So when did you change the title of the thread and remove the "Terrible Scenario" comment. So lets not leave it at that. I think it was still up as of this morning. That seems to be a pretty text book example of getting bent out of shape. Pretty insulting comment for a scenario designer to hear.
From then on, after admitting more than once that I had been wrong in my assumptions, I moved on to my request to have more information on the submarine side in general, because other games (Cold Waters) give it and it prevents needless trial and error.
That's all.
RE: Submarine Tutorial 1.4 (terrible scenario)
I'm a screen-starer myself. [:)] I need things to go SLOWLY. I can't handle 100 planes and missiles in the air dashing around. And yes, impatience is a big problem. Sub warfare unfolds SLOWLY. Speed = Noise = Death Sentence. As a submariner, if you need to catch up with something in a combat zone, you have pretty much already failed in your mission.ORIGINAL: thewood1
"I completed the following scenarios on my first try, perhaps being more cavalier, daring to run at Cruise or even Full speed closing in on an enemy sub as long as I could keep the layers in my favour (and being wary of staying out from under the layer if the target had a towed array)."
This what I talked about in the other sub complaint thread. Players just get impatient. I actually don't play a lot of ASW-focused scenarios because I can't stand staring at the screen. If there is one type of scenario that you can't cut corners in, its ASW scenarios, from either perspective.
Submarines are made to creep. Any other speed is just to get home in time for happy hour.
"It's all according to how your boogaloo situation stands, you understand."
Formerly known as Colonel Mustard, before I got Slitherine Syndrome.
Formerly known as Colonel Mustard, before I got Slitherine Syndrome.
RE: Submarine Tutorial 1.4 (terrible scenario)
Let's be clear here - It is not that you can't "push the tenets", as you say. You can, because the limits are not fixed. The key is that, just as in real life, you don't know when you are pushing them too far. In this game, you could make an aggressive move in the same scenario 3 or 4 times and get away with it, but the next time you could do the same thing and get caught. The "little else" that you refer to is actually a lot of variables, either abstracted or realistically modelled, and they have a large impact on your results.ORIGINAL: ShadowB
It's not a matter of impatience unless the scenario is (arguably unrealistically, outside of a tutorial) built for permanent creeping. Sometimes you need to catch up with things. My cavalier dashes didn't get my sub detected, so I ultimately disagree with dcpollay's statement that the basic tenets can't be pushed.ORIGINAL: thewood1
This what I talked about in the other sub complaint thread. Players just get impatient. I actually don't play a lot of ASW-focused scenarios because I can't stand staring at the screen. If there is one type of scenario that you can't cut corners in, its ASW scenarios, from either perspective.
Within any given circumstances where enemy presence isn't overwhelming, there are more liberal combinations of depth and speed which are relatively safe at certain times, and sometimes they're even necessary. Of course the general circumstances change, but it's always system versus system, with distance/depth plus thermocline quirks in the way, and little else.
I'll have to grudgingly accept that the game won't help me uncover the details, and it'll be a matter of copious trial and error.
"It's all according to how your boogaloo situation stands, you understand."
Formerly known as Colonel Mustard, before I got Slitherine Syndrome.
Formerly known as Colonel Mustard, before I got Slitherine Syndrome.
RE: Submarine Tutorial 1.4 (terrible scenario)
I still think that there are players that expect a boardgame-like fixed parameter puzzle. CMO, as I suspect is true in real-life naval operations, is about managing chaos and risk. Its very similar to a lot of initial complaints about Combat Mission by BFC. There is a lot of fuzziness around the edges. There is no single answer for any scenario.
A game like CMO is a hugely multivariate world. There is no set, "If I do this, then this will happen." You are constantly playing risk management and risk mitigation. This simple tutorial scenario is a great example. It is very risky to estimate the ship course and move your sub to get there in time. But the scenario designer built a perfect set of subtle hints to mitigate the risk. To someone not being rash and paying attention, the scenario is not that difficult. But to a player expecting a set piece tactical puzzle, its a frustrating and unexpectedly terrible scenario.
Just look at a few of the threads around the main forum and the tech section. There are a small cadre of people who expect the game to provide very specific information on the interaction of all the variables to provide the tactical answer for them. I also think they have a skewed view of what info is actually available to commanders in real-life. Yet they keep pushing the devs to add a constant stream of detailed info that will prevent them from doing things that they shouldn't do tactically.
It just comes down to a philosophy on what this game is; A simulation of operational decision-making based on unprecedented detail to teach a player naval tactics through application and experience, or a complex puzzle where getting a high score is the ultimate goal. The former will have some forgiveness in outcomes and details if they walk away feeling satisfied they learned something. The latter want a narrow path set for them that forces decisions within a very narrow band. The latter also want to feel that every detail matters to the outcome regardless of the innocuousness of the detail. They can't play the game without knowing every detail and mechanism that can possibly lead to a high score and a "win".
Its a conundrum for most wargame designers to try and cater to both sides and everything in between. And that is what's unique about CMO and its devs. They have added unprecedented detail without losing the operational decision-making that is the core of CMO. They have done a great job adding the detail while recognizing the ability to plan effectively. But they done it through innumerable options available to the player. Its why an experienced player spends more time planning than executing, by far. But planning has become very complex, due to all the options in things like ROE, WRA, refueling plans, disengagement, basing, logistics, etc.
But the planning aspect of the game is also what frustrates new players. If you look at this tutorial, its a good example. There are only three units in it. How difficult can it be to plan? But most players will not really take much notice of the spy unit and its key to the scenario. They won't take a detailed review of the sub's capabilities and the ship's capabilities. They won't consider the old military adage of choosing the environment you want to fight in. Some players will just jump in and draw a course and hope for the best.
So the response to the scenario is that the game should have told the player exactly what parameters for the encounter should be. In this case, the player wasn't focused on learning in a tutorial, they were focused on winning. Some players just write off the "loss" and others tell the devs its a terrible scenario and fix it or dosumfink. And the message the devs get is that they need to add more options, more messages, more switches. That's for the devs to decide. But at this point, playing CMO has become a function of switch/option management. There are probably 3-4 threads active right now where the player thinks the solution is "one more option or switch. Every single option and switch makes it that much more difficult for new players to grasp how to play.
Just look at the mythical Advanced Mission Planner (AMP). Look at the people who are really pushing for it. These are the same people who want every detail of every unit and its activities detailed. So theoretically, they want all that detail, then they want to not have to deal with it. I can guarantee two things about the AMP from my perspective. The first is it will increase the switchology and difficulty for inexperienced players immensely. To the point its a game within a game. Second, the same people who are pushing for the AMP will then spend the next two years complaining that its not doing X, Y, or Z exactly the way they should do it. Its the old micro-manage without micro-management story. The AMP fans say they want it to limit micro-management, yet will spend two years micro-managing the AMP. It comes down to that some players are attracted to CMO and its detail actually love micro-managing, but won't admit it.
A game like CMO is a hugely multivariate world. There is no set, "If I do this, then this will happen." You are constantly playing risk management and risk mitigation. This simple tutorial scenario is a great example. It is very risky to estimate the ship course and move your sub to get there in time. But the scenario designer built a perfect set of subtle hints to mitigate the risk. To someone not being rash and paying attention, the scenario is not that difficult. But to a player expecting a set piece tactical puzzle, its a frustrating and unexpectedly terrible scenario.
Just look at a few of the threads around the main forum and the tech section. There are a small cadre of people who expect the game to provide very specific information on the interaction of all the variables to provide the tactical answer for them. I also think they have a skewed view of what info is actually available to commanders in real-life. Yet they keep pushing the devs to add a constant stream of detailed info that will prevent them from doing things that they shouldn't do tactically.
It just comes down to a philosophy on what this game is; A simulation of operational decision-making based on unprecedented detail to teach a player naval tactics through application and experience, or a complex puzzle where getting a high score is the ultimate goal. The former will have some forgiveness in outcomes and details if they walk away feeling satisfied they learned something. The latter want a narrow path set for them that forces decisions within a very narrow band. The latter also want to feel that every detail matters to the outcome regardless of the innocuousness of the detail. They can't play the game without knowing every detail and mechanism that can possibly lead to a high score and a "win".
Its a conundrum for most wargame designers to try and cater to both sides and everything in between. And that is what's unique about CMO and its devs. They have added unprecedented detail without losing the operational decision-making that is the core of CMO. They have done a great job adding the detail while recognizing the ability to plan effectively. But they done it through innumerable options available to the player. Its why an experienced player spends more time planning than executing, by far. But planning has become very complex, due to all the options in things like ROE, WRA, refueling plans, disengagement, basing, logistics, etc.
But the planning aspect of the game is also what frustrates new players. If you look at this tutorial, its a good example. There are only three units in it. How difficult can it be to plan? But most players will not really take much notice of the spy unit and its key to the scenario. They won't take a detailed review of the sub's capabilities and the ship's capabilities. They won't consider the old military adage of choosing the environment you want to fight in. Some players will just jump in and draw a course and hope for the best.
So the response to the scenario is that the game should have told the player exactly what parameters for the encounter should be. In this case, the player wasn't focused on learning in a tutorial, they were focused on winning. Some players just write off the "loss" and others tell the devs its a terrible scenario and fix it or dosumfink. And the message the devs get is that they need to add more options, more messages, more switches. That's for the devs to decide. But at this point, playing CMO has become a function of switch/option management. There are probably 3-4 threads active right now where the player thinks the solution is "one more option or switch. Every single option and switch makes it that much more difficult for new players to grasp how to play.
Just look at the mythical Advanced Mission Planner (AMP). Look at the people who are really pushing for it. These are the same people who want every detail of every unit and its activities detailed. So theoretically, they want all that detail, then they want to not have to deal with it. I can guarantee two things about the AMP from my perspective. The first is it will increase the switchology and difficulty for inexperienced players immensely. To the point its a game within a game. Second, the same people who are pushing for the AMP will then spend the next two years complaining that its not doing X, Y, or Z exactly the way they should do it. Its the old micro-manage without micro-management story. The AMP fans say they want it to limit micro-management, yet will spend two years micro-managing the AMP. It comes down to that some players are attracted to CMO and its detail actually love micro-managing, but won't admit it.
RE: Submarine Tutorial 1.4 (terrible scenario)
FWIW, my impression after the first play of this "tutorial" was bit like the OP's.
I played it over and over and over. Finally, I realized that it was teaching me something, so that was good.
Is it a "balanced" scenario (whatever that is)? No. The submarine must move to be at an intercept point and it must get there in a specific amount of time. Thus, the speed and direction of movement are dictated. (It took several trial runs to determine the enemy ship's course.)
The next piece if figuring out if the depth at which the submarine moves makes any difference. It's been awhile, so I think it had to be snorkeling, but that could've just been my desire to get the batteries charged up.
Finally, having determined the intercept point and successfully arrived, you've got to learn what depth will work for waiting without being discovered.
After the final part (the post-final
), you've got to escape...if your torps missed. Or, if the torps were underway but a helo was airborne.
That created more opportunities to learn.
Had this been real-life, I would've left a dozen or two submarine hulks scattered about the bottom of the Med. (Obviously, I would've survived to re-captain yet another eager crew.)
So, was it frustrating? Yes. It is hard to win. But, as a tutorial, it taught me some lessons.
FWIW.
I played it over and over and over. Finally, I realized that it was teaching me something, so that was good.
Is it a "balanced" scenario (whatever that is)? No. The submarine must move to be at an intercept point and it must get there in a specific amount of time. Thus, the speed and direction of movement are dictated. (It took several trial runs to determine the enemy ship's course.)
The next piece if figuring out if the depth at which the submarine moves makes any difference. It's been awhile, so I think it had to be snorkeling, but that could've just been my desire to get the batteries charged up.
Finally, having determined the intercept point and successfully arrived, you've got to learn what depth will work for waiting without being discovered.
After the final part (the post-final
), you've got to escape...if your torps missed. Or, if the torps were underway but a helo was airborne.That created more opportunities to learn.
Had this been real-life, I would've left a dozen or two submarine hulks scattered about the bottom of the Med. (Obviously, I would've survived to re-captain yet another eager crew.)
So, was it frustrating? Yes. It is hard to win. But, as a tutorial, it taught me some lessons.
FWIW.
RE: Submarine Tutorial 1.4
A lot has been written in this thread about this scenario. Based on all of that attention, I played the scenario.
The first problem that I had was the sub needs to be in position in order to take on the ship. Unless the sub in in the proper position, it is doomed for failure. I tried it the first time, and I was out of position. I extended that scenario and tried to "catch up" to the ship by speeding up, but I was detected.
I then tried the scenario a second time, and I did manage to get into position. I was slightly off course by about 2 1/2 miles when I fired my torpedoes. The ship was able to evade, and outrun, my torpedoes.
I tried the scenario a third time, this time managing to place my sub directly in the path of the ship. As the ship got near, I say on the bottom, just as the scenario description discussed. The ship passed directly over the sub without detecting it because it was masked by the floor terrain. I was then able to fire my torpedoes at the sub from its baffles, and destroyed the ship without the ship ever even detecting the sub.
thewood1's description of how not get detected and to sink the ship is spot on. The hardest part is trying to get into proper position.
IMO, the scenario description is actually really good, and if you read and follow the instructions, it does properly describe HOW to win the scenario. It also "teaches" or "informs" the game player of a very interesting tactic that I was not aware of before attempting the scenario.
Doug
The first problem that I had was the sub needs to be in position in order to take on the ship. Unless the sub in in the proper position, it is doomed for failure. I tried it the first time, and I was out of position. I extended that scenario and tried to "catch up" to the ship by speeding up, but I was detected.
I then tried the scenario a second time, and I did manage to get into position. I was slightly off course by about 2 1/2 miles when I fired my torpedoes. The ship was able to evade, and outrun, my torpedoes.
I tried the scenario a third time, this time managing to place my sub directly in the path of the ship. As the ship got near, I say on the bottom, just as the scenario description discussed. The ship passed directly over the sub without detecting it because it was masked by the floor terrain. I was then able to fire my torpedoes at the sub from its baffles, and destroyed the ship without the ship ever even detecting the sub.
thewood1's description of how not get detected and to sink the ship is spot on. The hardest part is trying to get into proper position.
IMO, the scenario description is actually really good, and if you read and follow the instructions, it does properly describe HOW to win the scenario. It also "teaches" or "informs" the game player of a very interesting tactic that I was not aware of before attempting the scenario.
Doug
RE: Submarine Tutorial 1.4
The two keys I noticed immediately, hinted in the briefing, were the importance of the spy and active pinging from the sonar.
1) Have the spy move down the coast as the ship sails by. They can maintain contact off and on with visual spotting for quite a while. That gives you a pretty good estimate of the speed and direction of the ship. Then I paused it and set a mental timer to know how long I can travel at periscope depth to charge my batteries.
2) Knowing the ship is pinging, you now know you'll see them well before they "see" you. That allows you to stay deep and creep around to get into a final position. But I made sure to stay at zero speed when I estimated they were halfway to my position.
I also fired two torps and the ship out ran them. But while the ship is at 33 knots, the ship is blind. I sped up to a new position to ambush him again because I know exactly where he is going. I was able to get into a new position and fired at 1 nm range and killed him. I then went deep and stopped so the helo wouldn't find me. IIRC, the scenario ends when the ship sinks.
1) Have the spy move down the coast as the ship sails by. They can maintain contact off and on with visual spotting for quite a while. That gives you a pretty good estimate of the speed and direction of the ship. Then I paused it and set a mental timer to know how long I can travel at periscope depth to charge my batteries.
2) Knowing the ship is pinging, you now know you'll see them well before they "see" you. That allows you to stay deep and creep around to get into a final position. But I made sure to stay at zero speed when I estimated they were halfway to my position.
I also fired two torps and the ship out ran them. But while the ship is at 33 knots, the ship is blind. I sped up to a new position to ambush him again because I know exactly where he is going. I was able to get into a new position and fired at 1 nm range and killed him. I then went deep and stopped so the helo wouldn't find me. IIRC, the scenario ends when the ship sinks.
RE: Submarine Tutorial 1.4
A moving spy? Clever. I never thought to do that. Nice job.
-
Rory Noonan
- Posts: 2418
- Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:53 am
- Location: Brooklyn, NY
RE: Submarine Tutorial 1.4
Shouldn't have mentioned that; that spy is going to get knee-capped!ORIGINAL: thewood1
The two keys I noticed immediately, hinted in the briefing, were the importance of the spy and active pinging from the sonar.
1) Have the spy move down the coast as the ship sails by. They can maintain contact off and on with visual spotting for quite a while. That gives you a pretty good estimate of the speed and direction of the ship. Then I paused it and set a mental timer to know how long I can travel at periscope depth to charge my batteries.
Good thinking though!
