Should biologics/false contacts always be added in scenarios that have submarines?
Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2025 6:31 pm
I've been inspired to make this thread based on a reply comment left by Kushan in a user scenario thread, and since I'd rather not fill up that thread with a side-debate, I thought I would start a discussion here for everyone else to give input:
In that thread, I said:
Here's my reasoning:
First, in small scale scenarios where the player only controls a handful of assets, or even just one ship or submarine, the commander would be more aware of new sonar contacts as they appear to the Sonar operators, and might have to make decisions on how to respond to these new contacts before they are classified.
Second, the wild nature of the underwater world means that there will not always be clear enough conditions for Sonar operators to always be quickly certain of what the contact is, especially in older scenarios (think CWDB settings).
Third, I simply think it's a little too easy from a gameplay perspective for the player of a scenario to simply be able to fire on any underwater contact, knowing it will be a submarine. Having uncertainty reinforces the importance of knowing what your are firing on, avoiding ordinance waste, and learning to interpret contacts from incomplete information (in this case, knowing when to spot a submarine from another sonar contact from it's speed).
I can concede that in large and very large scale scenarios, (except for dedicated ASW ones like "Opening Moves" of Northern Inferno), there can be value in just "assuming" biologics and false contacts being filtered out by the rank-and-file.
So, where do you stand on this?
Should any scenario that contains submarines also include at least a few biologics and/or false contacts?
In that thread, I said:
Kushan replied:I firmly believe that any submarines in a scenario should mean including at least a few biologics.
I've always thought it made perfect sense to always include at least some biologics and/or false contacts in any scenario that contains submarines. While I do understand where Kushan is coming from, I feel that the variable that he is talking about doesn't always apply.I disagree. Any competent sonar operator is going to be able to identify a whale and filter it out. From a gameplay perspective, unless a scenario designer puts in the effort, it's blindingly obvious what is a submarine and what's a biologic.
Here's my reasoning:
First, in small scale scenarios where the player only controls a handful of assets, or even just one ship or submarine, the commander would be more aware of new sonar contacts as they appear to the Sonar operators, and might have to make decisions on how to respond to these new contacts before they are classified.
Second, the wild nature of the underwater world means that there will not always be clear enough conditions for Sonar operators to always be quickly certain of what the contact is, especially in older scenarios (think CWDB settings).
Third, I simply think it's a little too easy from a gameplay perspective for the player of a scenario to simply be able to fire on any underwater contact, knowing it will be a submarine. Having uncertainty reinforces the importance of knowing what your are firing on, avoiding ordinance waste, and learning to interpret contacts from incomplete information (in this case, knowing when to spot a submarine from another sonar contact from it's speed).
I can concede that in large and very large scale scenarios, (except for dedicated ASW ones like "Opening Moves" of Northern Inferno), there can be value in just "assuming" biologics and false contacts being filtered out by the rank-and-file.
So, where do you stand on this?
Should any scenario that contains submarines also include at least a few biologics and/or false contacts?