[Logged] Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

[MH-60Deuce]

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.

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:

ORIGINAL: ultradave

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

[thewood1]

ORIGINAL: MH-60Deuce

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.

[thewood1]

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.

[thewood1]

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?

[BDukes]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

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

[thewood1]

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

[BDukes]

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

[thewood1]

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

[thewood1]

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.

[SeaQueen]

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.

[thewood1]

I have heard that water's chemical composition can have some impact on detectability through sonar. Is it just density caused by the chemical make up that causes that or is the actual chemical make up of the water?

[SeaQueen]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
I have heard that water's chemical composition can have some impact on detectability through sonar. Is it just density caused by the chemical make up that causes that or is the actual chemical make up of the water?

It's density. One of the biggest drivers for sonar detection ranges is transmission loss (TL). The value of the TL for a given combination of target/sensor depths depends on a lot of things. One of the most important things is the sound speed profile (SSP). That dictates how sound waves are refracted through the water column. The density of the water depends on temperature, pressure, and its chemical composition, primarily salinity. There's several empirical formulae for calculating the speed of sound at a given depth (pressure) based on temperature and salinity. Those are typically measured by expendable instruments such as an XBT.

[thewood1]

That's probably more than I need to know. But thanks.

[SeaQueen]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

That's probably more than I need to know. But thanks.

I got more where that comes from, baby.

[Dimitris]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... down-below

[c3k]

Nice article. Linking further: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... the-movies

I have not seen anything like the capabilities discussed in this article to appear to be in the game.

It could just be my lack of exposure.

[thewood1]

Can you be more specific on which capabilities those would be? That's kind of vague. I see some things that happen or look like they happen, but others I'm not sure about.

[Flankerk]

I think hidden underneath all this there is a problem am afraid.

Just playing Arctic Tsunami under version 1147.14.

In essence I have manoeuvred an Astute towards a Russian group in sea state 2.
I am at shallow depth at 5 knots. The Russian have a Udaloy, a Sovremenny and a Kirov type.

Due to damage from air strikes the Russian are also at 5 knots.

We are in deep water but well within the CZ'z.

The Astute picks up the Russian ships at around 4 Nautical Miles direct path. However the Russians have a good detection and are firing at between 6 and 7 nautical miles. All pick up the Astute and all pick it up on Horse Jaw. None are on active.

My gut instinct is that there might be a potential problem with Horse Jaw detecting as if it was active when it isn't?

There is certainly an oddity in that they are capable of detecting the Astute class when it is unable to detect them?

[thewood1]

Thanks for the save. I'm sure the devs will take a look.

[Flankerk]

Attached should be a variation.

This is a save from the Seventh Battle, oner is from slightly further out one closer in.
Ignore the rest of it but a Los Angeles at 5 knots shallow is approaching a task group also at 5 knots centred on Gorshkov. This is off the coast of Cape Town.

Some aspects seem to work as expected. The LA tends to pick up a Sovremenny at around 12NM. (The only slight variation is why in my other example the Astute didn't detect. The Sovremenny does not seem to pick up the LA at all.

However at just under 9 NM Gorshkov detects the LA and commences firing. They do not go active.

And the detecting sensor you won't get any prizes for guessing

I don't know if any other sonars are a problem, and to be fair Horse Jaw might be a decent one, however on the face of it, this can detect at least some subs before they can counter detect and it certainly seems to stop a sub from getting into a position where it can itself attack.