Let me just quote myself from the Steam forums:
The long answer is that it depends on what your definition of realism is. We've elected to focus on realistic weapons, sensors and acoustics. Our acoustics model simulates convergence zones, surface ducts, bottom bounce and shadow zones, to name a few, and our weapons and sensors are modelled according to their real-life performance. Overall we've designed our systems to perform as close to real life as is possible while still providing for a fun gameplay experience without the frustratingly steep learning curve that is common with more procedural sims. What we don't do is micromanagement of individual sonar panels or have you pushing buttons on a faux torpedo launch console.
Firecontrol is consolidated much like it was in Red Storm Rising. Basically there is a TMA process running on any contact, and the targets will show up on the tactical display where your crew thinks they are. Only when solution confidence grows over 85% are the contacts continuously plotted and visible in external views. The speed of the TMA process depends on signal strength, bearing rate, if the target is classified, and whether or not the target is maneuvering. You may select any contact as a target of interest, and it will be prioritized by the TMA process. This simulates the timesharing of trackers aboard real subs.
If there is no time for passive TMA (like in a knife fight scenario) you can use active sonar for a rapid fire solution. Against surface ships you can use passive sensors like ESM or the periscope. There is also active radar, which is useful for BVR attacks on targets who cannot attack you, such as merchants and landing craft. In this scenario ESM is useful for determining whether or not any escorts are around that may counterattack.
Weapons run to a preset waypoint where they will then go active. The FCS will suggest a gyro angle and run-to-enable based on the current solution, but you can override this if you want to. If you launch weapons from 3rd person, they will use the camera bearing along with the suggested run-to-enable distance. If you coordinate your attack from the tactical plot, you get to manually set the waypoint by drag-and-click.
You can change weapon presets before launch or after launch depending on if the wire is intact.
Settings include search patterns, run depth and for missiles whether or not to conduct a pop-up or wavetop attack and the seeker FOV. If you have a wire on your Mk48's you can manually change search patterns or run depth or manually steer the weapon (again from the tactical plot or 3rd person depending on your preference) if the enemy is employing decoys and knuckles as they evade. The torpedoes have a two-way datalink and will send their own sonar data to your FCS when they acquire a target.
This system allows you to concentrate on tactics without having to worry about micromanagement of the various consoles and control panels around the sub.
The tactical plot itself is as reasonable a depiction as research made possible of the MK-117 FCS running on a MK81 console, as would have been fitted to most front-line SSN's during the 80's.
You do manage weapon loadout, weapon presets as well as firecontrol. We use a waypoint system which allows you to manually set run-to-enable and gyro angle with an intuitive drag-and-click interface on the tactical map OR camera bearing + FCS suggested run-to-enable if in external camera mode. As long as you have a wire on the torpedo, you may override it and issue new search modes, run depth or manually steer it in azimuth. If it hasn't activated yet, you can set a new RTE waypoint for it.
The FCS assumes that your crew is timesharing the available trackers except for one, which is reserved for whichever contact you designate as a contact of interest and is prioritized during the TMA process. The Mk48's also feature a datalink which is capable of providing your FCS with target information derived from the torpedo's sensors, in effect allowing you to use it as an offboard sensor.
I think it's important to remember that DW is a commercial version of a USN training simulator while ours is a tactical game about submarine combat if WW3 happened in the mid-80's.
During early development we went through several concepts including the traditional DW-like stations approach and we rejected these as providing to sterile an experience, and elected to start with what amounts to a 'clean sheet' design. If you want a very technically accurate but sterile simulation where time-bearing waterfall displays are modelled exactly true to life, then DW already does that. But you have to contend with canned scenarios where winning strategies can be learned. Whereas our game is about commanding a submarine in a real war, where tactical and strategic choices carry consequences in the bigger picture and you can never be sure what awaits you when you encounter the enemy. It's really two entirely different experiences.
|