[Logged] Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Post bug reports and ask for game support here.

Moderator: MOD_Command

Rory Noonan
Posts: 2418
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:53 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Post by Rory Noonan »

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.
Image
DWReese
Posts: 2428
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Miami, Florida

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Post by DWReese »

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.

User avatar
MarechalJoffre
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:51 pm

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Post by MarechalJoffre »

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.
User avatar
SeaQueen
Posts: 1436
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:20 am
Location: Washington D.C.

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Post by SeaQueen »

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.
User avatar
SeaQueen
Posts: 1436
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:20 am
Location: Washington D.C.

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Post by SeaQueen »

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
Posts: 2428
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Miami, Florida

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Post by DWReese »

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
Posts: 15276
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:29 am
Contact:

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Post by Dimitris »

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!
User avatar
SeaQueen
Posts: 1436
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:20 am
Location: Washington D.C.

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Post by SeaQueen »

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.
User avatar
MarechalJoffre
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:51 pm

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Post by MarechalJoffre »

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
Posts: 10042
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: Boston

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Post by thewood1 »

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.
User avatar
MarechalJoffre
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:51 pm

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Post by MarechalJoffre »

It is just quick test that you can do in the editor. Put a Burke on one side and two Virginias on the other. Sea state is as I described, Burke is at 20kts and cavitating with active sonar and Virginias are at creep speed. It literally takes 2 minutes to set up. But fine, I'll upload the file.

Here it is. You might point out that subs are showing their broadsides, but even when submarines are facing towards the Burke detection ranges are only down to 7NMI, barely inside the practical torpedo range (keep in mind that the Burke is moving at 20kts still). Kinematic doesn't matter as torpedoes peter out beyond 12NMIs in this build. One other funny thing is how Burke detects the bottom Virginia before the Virginia can get a passive detection. That thing is moving at 20kts!
thewood1
Posts: 10042
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: Boston

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Post by thewood1 »

Thank you.
thewood1
Posts: 10042
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: Boston

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Post by thewood1 »

And this is why people ask for saves. The Burke has active sonar pinging away. No wonder its picking those subs up. The Burke's active sonar has a range of 40nm. The subs are at 7-8nm. It also has the VDS deployed. Both of those together and you couldn't hide a sleeping baby in a storm. This is a modern warship with every advanced piece of ASW technology you can think of. Equipped with powerful sonar with 2010 technology and a very modern towed variable depth sonar receiver. Not sure what the expectation was. In fact, the sonar being on wasn't an oversight. The ROEs were set for it to be on.

I turned off the sonar and dropped both sub contacts. After 25 minutes, all the Burke had was a very poor directional contact on the 450m sub that was going in and out and not a sniff of the deep sub even after driving within 2nm of the sub positions.

I reset the scenario, turned off the sonar again and drove right over both subs. At about 1.5nm, the Burke got a close fix on the 450m sub and a long directional contact on the deep sub. As the Burke increased its range, the contacts both dropped. The deep sub after a minute and the 450m deep one after 10 minutes.

I then ran the scenario again with sonar off and the Burke at flank. It never picked up either sub. One thing I'm surprised at is the towed array wasn't damaged by the speed of the Burke.

My amateur's view is this is working exactly as a I would expect from a detection standpoint. I'll point out the resistance to posting a save sure has generated a lot of comments that could have been short-circuited with a simple save. How did the OP ever expect anyone to know the Burke had its active sonar on with a picture?
Battelman2
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2018 6:13 pm

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Post by Battelman2 »

I mean, for what it's worth, he did very clearly say before posting the save that the Burke's sonar was active. That being said, I'd like to see more practical tests like this for passive to see where the balance truly lies. I make no direct claims, nor have I done any tests to back this up, but it does seem to me just from playing a lot like subs are too easily detected on passive by surface combatants.

EDIT: I stand corrected, he said it detected on both active and passive. So somewhere between the two of you there is a discrepancy. Even if thewood1 is correct, just through a lot of play time I get the unshakable feeling that passive sonar on cruising or faster surface ships routinely detects creeping subs at too great a range, even beyond 10nm sometimes.
User avatar
MarechalJoffre
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:51 pm

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Post by MarechalJoffre »

Are you even reading my posts? I have my doubts. I've already clearly stated that active sonar was on?
ORIGINAL: MarechalJoffre
Burke was able to get BOTH active and passive detection at 10 NMIs(!) on two Virginias moving at 5kts.

I don't think you get my point. I'm saying I find it hardly realistic that a modern, fourth-generation submarine with anechoic coating applied can be detected with active sonar (much less a MF one) at ranges beyond which it could prosecute a torpedo attack. Which renders submarines next to useless in most cases. It is a suicidal endeavor.

You'd expect detection ranges to be around 10 miles (roughly speaking) in perfect conditions, but much less in bad weather and choppy seas. This is how acoustic energy dissipates underwater, is it not?

You'd expect towed-array to be practically useless, let alone deployed, at speeds over 10-15kts.

I understand that CMO is not a sub sim and doesn't model (to my knowledge) things like sound speed profiles which are of vital importance for underwater operations. I do however expect submarines to be bit more survivable in an otherwise excellent simulation.

I don't get why you are acting out in such a confrontational way without apparently even reading what I wrote. I rest my case and as I seek no further hostility, I'll leave the discussion to others from now on.
thewood1
Posts: 10042
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: Boston

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Post by thewood1 »

Also, with the Burkes active sonar off, at least one of the subs, and may both pick up the Burke well before they are detected. If the Burke has the active sonar pinging, the subs pick up the Burke 3-4 times faster from quite a distance away. I am assuming that's why ships don't turn on active sonar unless they have to.
Battelman2
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2018 6:13 pm

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Post by Battelman2 »

I agree that typically the subs will detect the surface contacts first, but when the surface combatant has ASROCs and the sub only torpedos- which isn't always but is common when playing NATO... it doesn't matter. You're dead, even if you detected him first.
thewood1
Posts: 10042
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: Boston

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Post by thewood1 »

You really think that a powerful sonar set isn't going to ever be able to pick up a sub with 7-8 nm of it? Anechoic isn't some super special invisibility-inducing coating. It reduces the detection ability a little, but doesn't stop it. On the other hand, no ship's sonar is a magic flashlight, but a 2010 era Burke has a very powerful sonar and immense signal processing capabilities.

Try one generation behind the Burkes with a Perry. Even with active sonar they have to be right on top of those subs. As to depth, thats why you have VDS. It doesn't completely moot surface conditions, but goes a long way to it.

In the end, I'm not really sure where you get your expectations from with regards to detectability in a modern environment. Mine only come from reading and discussions from this board. But I see nothing out of whack with CMO's model right now. Picking up a sub from a powerful hull sonar with a very modern towed array extended within 7 miles is reasonable.

As to the subs not picking up the Burke, with sonar pinging, the subs see it somewhere between 15 and 20 nm. Without active sonar, they see the burke between 10 and 12. Both are before the subs show even a directional contact.
thewood1
Posts: 10042
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: Boston

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Post by thewood1 »

So I went back and double checked the initial detection point for the Burke at 20 knots and full active sonar. Its averaging 90nm. Yes, 90nm. The Burke is averaging 6.5nm detecting the deep sub. The sub in the layer only gets even an initial detection in maybe 1 out of three tries. So the subs see the pinging Burke over 80 nm before they are detected.

Tried several runs with Perry-class ships from 2003 and they were only detecting the deep sub at around 1nm average.

The only strange thing I see is that there is no damage to the towed array at flank speed tests.
Battelman2
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2018 6:13 pm

RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming?

Post by Battelman2 »

I think part of the problem is how subs act on ASW/SCP missions. If left to their own devices, the subs aren't smart enough to try to sit themselves in the path of a known surface contact. A modern destroyer on a plotted course seems to have an unfair advantage over subs hunting on patrol missions, because unless the sub is already directly in the path of said destroyer then there is little chance of it getting a torpedo off before the destroyer fires an ASROC. Even if the sub is directly in front, the mission isn't smart enough to make it stop entirely and wait. Instead, it will continue towards the contact with greater risk of detection. 4 or 5 knots is all it takes to make yourself known to a trigger-happy Udaloy. I feel like the mission AI is more to blame for sub losses than detectability. A well trained crew in an Astute should sink a Burke nine times out of ten, but in CMO the sub loses that edge due to its mission behavior.
Post Reply

Return to “Tech Support”