My review

[Sunburn]

Originally Posted by Zander

I just want Sonalysts to give us their best shot at a modern DWS, and I'll die happy. And yes, this game is a keeper. Thank you Warfaresims.

Thanks for the confidence!

[biosthetique]

Originally Posted by Sunburn

BTW If I am wrong and this capability is described anywhere out there (outside the SSN game), please do correct me. I would be interested in learning more about it. Thanks!

LOL!...That is cute!...SSN does not explain you how to do that, it is not in the SSN manual. The physics of that "low-fidelity sim bordering on arcade" allows you to do it as the physics of DW would allow you to do it if the Detonate option was offered. Clancy was not a US Government contractor, but Sonalyst is.

It is advanced defensive tactic!...It is not basic evasive maneuvers medium range dump a noise maker and turn 90 degrees to exit the torpedo cone of vision, and force it to reacquire you.

Now, if you doubt the physics of a torpedo exploding, creating a shock wave within 200 yards of an incoming torpedo, which shock wave explodes the incoming torpedo, then it is ok.

The exploding torpedo is still wired, active and also guided by the sonar system of the sub launcher, as the torpedo alone can not do it. It will get you close, but it is not as accurate as to collide with incoming torpedo. It needs the help of the Sub launcher sonar to place it in the course of the incoming torpedo, and when within xxx yards, kaboum!

Jane's won't tell you how to use a weapon, it is not a field manual, but it will tell you the capabilities of a weapon system, and if it can be destroyed at will while still wired. Remember, torpedoes explode anyway when they run out of gas and the wire long gone, to protect the technology.

Now if you don't believe it because it defies your perceptions or for any other reasons, it is ok. Moreover, I don't think that anyone in their right mind would deliberately prove your point or sustain my description, by producing a page of a manual explaining how things get done in a combat environment.

And I am done talking about that, as right or wrong, accurate or not, what I know does not define me, and I'd rather be experiencing some games/sims/"low-fidelity sim bordering on arcade" (real classy), than talking about them.

Your game is good and there is many room available for improvements!

BTW, don't take yourself too seriously, Tom Clancy was not abducted for illustrating "Command detonate" in Tom Clancy SSN, and he certainly knows more about Submarines weapon systems than you and I together.

Now throw me another one, so you will have the last word

[Sunburn]

Originally Posted by biosthetique

Now throw me another one, so you will have the last word

Come now, we're both adults. First! and last! posts are for kids & trolls.

I understand what you're saying, and your description sounds plausible. I'm just wondering how come it (not the detonation command, but the practicality of using it to disrupt other torpedoes) has never been mentioned anywhere else.

I'll have another round with our sub folks to discuss this. If it's feasible, we can look into implementing this on a future update.

Thanks!

[DAB]

Originally Posted by biosthetique

Due to the numerous accidents (incident) or close call, or near miss to the usage of Acoustic homing torpedoes, as the tech. allowed it, a wire was added to control torpedoes during the first leg of their courses.

That was at first a safety measure.

As the technology evolved, other functions were added to the control of torpedoes.

Today, the safety measures remains as shutting them down when recovery was possible or exploding them as the technology could be recovered by other country. Torpedoes tech is top secret for their homing system in ANY countries in the world.

Exploding a torpedo as a tactical defensive maneuver is also used, as long as it is still wired.

see Advanced Defensive Tactics post in Subsim.com

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom//sho...d.php?t=207398

Whilst I'm sure could be possible to remote detonate a wire guided torpedo, either through design or some random property of the software used, I can't imagine it being used as a tactical capability. As a method of destroying a missed torpedo to prevent it falling into the hands of a rival power - quite possibly. But then again, why would this be a property unique to wire guided torpedo's when you could simply write a programme for any torpedo to self destruct after say 3, 6 or 12 hours.

My umbridge with it as a secret, unacknowledged tactical capability is what tactical advantage could the capability actually have. As Sunburn says, passive Sonar and Target Motion Analysis isn't known for its precision accuracy. And if you are close enough to the target that you're prosecuting it with Active Sonar... why not just close the range and allow the torpedo to make the kill?

The thread you link to suggests that you could use this capability to torpedo incoming torpedo's. Again. Maybe, if the torpedo could get close enough. But no submarine would stick around long enough surely to guide a torpedo in that close. Presuming this is a classic SSN duel (say 688I vs Akula) of the kind we play in 688I and Dangerous Waters. The 688 gets into a good firing position, closes the range and fires two torpedo's at the Akula. A few minutes later, the Akula detects the torpedo's and snapshots back two torpedo's of its own. The next defensive move for the 688 is to turn tail, put the Akula's torpedo's 30 degrees off the stern, increase speed to open up the range and change depth to get below / above a thermal layer. At that point, the wire controlling the torpedo shots has been broken: the original torpedo's can not be guided in.

You could fire another torpedo (I suppose) at the torpedo's, but given those torpedo's are behind you coming towards you in a straight line; TMA is going to be very inaccurate. And anyway, traveling at 20+ knots in the opposite direction in which you want the torpedo to go is not conducive to keeping the wire intact ( and god help you if the torpedo tangled in your propeller.

The only reference I've ever seen to torpedo's self destructing before hitting the target and people torpedoing torpedo's is in the Michael DiMicurio novels I read as an adolescent. And they were near future science fiction.

And even if that function does exist in Submarine Warfare: is it really such an immersion killer that it hasn't been modelled. I'm sure that their are aspects of targeting for sidewinder missiles that haven't been modelled on the F18's. if it was a survey sim like Dangerous Waters, I might be missed. But the point of command is that you are the strategist and tactician, and that you leave the method of carrying out your decisions to the AI.

[biosthetique]

DAB, get TOM CLANCY SSN and experiment with your scenario then film it. The game is ARCADISH enough to be understood by anyone!

[Richard G]

Can a wire guided torp be shut down? (in the game)

Can a wire guided torp track the launching sub? (kill yourself?). I read on the other forum torps are not homing on own ship properly when they somehow get in the way.

[Sunburn]

Hello,

1) No.

2) We currently do not model cutting the guidance wire so the torpedo always views its launching sub as friendly and thus never attacks it. We intend to add this feature in a future update.

Thanks!

[mapuc]

This game and other sim games for that matter, will never be 100 % realistic.

And it's a good reason to why.

Markus

[Ardaeshir]

Originally Posted by biosthetique

ha! ha! ha! If you are in the US Navy (or any DOD department from many countries), in the reserve, or retired, you have a duty to not reveal details for XX years.

Yep, that is very true. Not only are there very serious legal penalties for revealing information, but most military people will simply decline because of patriotism and professional sense of duty.

That's why its usually much more enlighting and pleasant to discuss "old" stuff (Ancient, WW2 or at best Cold war era) with military people so as not to get into these sort of convoluted "I know but can't tell" situations.

I know one (now retired) Russian and ex-soviet staff analyst. We came round togeatehr once and we had to evade all subjects related to our countries or modern doctrinal issues. (On the other hand we did have a blast talking about the 1980s Angola border war).


So yeah... modern warfare and doctrine issues can be problematic. That's just how things are in the gaming industry - don't expect to make a relaistic game about SWAT if you plan on asking actual SWAT to tell you how they run things

[DAB]

Originally Posted by biosthetique

DAB, get TOM CLANCY SSN and experiment with your scenario then film it. The game is ARCADISH enough to be understood by anyone!

I've owned SSN and read the book someone wrote on Tom Clancy's behalf to go alongside that game. I'm sure that if I downloaded the game, I could do what you are suggesting with the torpedo's

What I'm questioning is the assertion that because something can be done in an arcade(ish) like game, it must be proof positive that this capability exists. Likewise, an inability to do the same in another game (let's say Dangerous Waters) doesn't prove that the capability doesn't exist. The second half of my post then questions under what senario in real life a naval commander would stay put and make use of this ultra-secret niche capability when the prudent thing to do is turn tale and open up the range.

In research, journalism, intelligence and academia; something is not proven until there are (at least) two independent sources to colloberate it. A mass market computer game, whether it be SSN, 688I or Command:MANW is not a reliable source. If you want to to prove that this capability exists: then you will need to provide alternative, rigourous sources. Until then, saying that something is technically possible and could be done is no reason to insist that it "must" be added into a simulation.

[biosthetique]

Originally Posted by DAB

I've owned SSN and read the book someone wrote on Tom Clancy's behalf to go alongside that game. I'm sure that if I downloaded the game, I could do what you are suggesting with the torpedo's

What I'm questioning is the assertion that because something can be done in an arcade(ish) like game, it must be proof positive that this capability exists. Likewise, an inability to do the same in another game (let's say Dangerous Waters) doesn't prove that the capability doesn't exist. The second half of my post then questions under what senario in real life a naval commander would stay put and make use of this ultra-secret niche capability when the prudent thing to do is turn tale and open up the range.

In research, journalism, intelligence and academia; something is not proven until there are (at least) two independent sources to colloberate it. A mass market computer game, whether it be SSN, 688I or Command:MANW is not a reliable source. If you want to to prove that this capability exists: then you will need to provide alternative, rigourous sources. Until then, saying that something is technically possible and could be done is no reason to insist that it "must" be added into a simulation.

1- I did not say it "MUST BE ADDED", I said: "Then again, NO COMMAND DETONATE of torpedoes, and that is unrealistic". I don't distribute directives around here.

2- True, because showed in SSN, technically possible, and presenting a certain edge in combat, those facts mean that it is done or not done in reality. It does not mean anything, it is neutral!

3- As I said earlier "Moreover, I don't think that anyone in their right mind would deliberately prove your point or sustain my description, by producing a page of a manual explaining how things get done in a combat environment." If it is classified and technically possible or probable (as you would not classified something impossible except for counter-intel. purpose), the info will be denied or ignored. Now, it can also be ignored or laughed at, when totally impossible or irrelevant without discarding a counter-intel angle.

4- I am not into proving something right or wrong, especially about Sonars or Torpedo technology.

5- In intelligence work, theories are developed based on possible moves to reach a goal based on a possible motive as much as there are moves on a check board for a given piece. Sometimes to get a theory started then checked, a single iota of info is enough. Corroboration is always open to interpretations. Finally, intel theories are often proved after the facts, yet it comes with the territory.

6- In research papers in the Academia environment, you list the source and reference of info. But your interpretation is not cited as it is your perception based on interpretation of existing information. To make a point, you use your materials as stepping stones to cross a river, and a leap of faith is necessary to step from one stone to the next. Eisnstein started his theory of time relativity by wondering how it would be to travel on a beam of light. Vision and imagination are almighty.

Now you take a book like "Anti-Submarine Warfare" from David Owen published by Naval Institute Press Annapolis Maryland in 2007, ISBN1-59114-014-5, and you will find interesting stepping stones on page 214.
You can also take the "United States Submarines" from David Randall Hinkle, Harry H Caldwell, Arne C Johnson, the Naval Submarine League, and Sonalysts Inc., published by Barnes & Noble books in 2004 ISBN 0-7607-6219-8.Then read the chapter called "The Future". More stepping stones and also probable info that became reality, since. Then on page 342 a description of a future submarine combat system to provide operators with detailed knowledge of their environment and the tactical scene in 3D, which reminds me of a "low-fidelity sim bordering on arcade". Which 3D system alike is available for ordinary people to admire in a documentary presented by Boeing called "Fighter Pilot, Operation Red Flag" ID4879K28D by Stephen Low, originally an IMAX movie. There are also, Jane's "Underwater Warfare System, XXXX-XXXX" and Jane's "Fighting Ships, XXXX-XXXX". I haven't looked into Jane's "Unconventional Weapons" and Jane's "Pocket Book of Naval Armament".

7- True, I agree. Turning tail and opening up the distance to fight another day is also within the range of possible behaviors to attack the same sub later in its baffle. You can do that, when a torpedo has been launched at you from a long range to outrun it, if you know the torpedo range, speed and bearing. i.e. A stealth/long range torpedo is fired at you 5 miles away at 000. That Torpedo has a top speed of 36kts and a range on average (following the game you are playing) of 10 miles. You will outrun that missile by turning away at 1/2 speed(LA class depending of the game), as the torpedo will run out of fuel approximately when it closes to one mile away from you. Or you can unload some noise makers, fire a MOSS, reach the next Thermocline, shoot down/up that incoming torpedo, scare the hell out of the enemy skipper, and give him a finger!...You are the "Pasha", you can do whatever you want.

[clive bradbury]

Let's not over-complicate things. What this boils down to is that you have assumed a capability for a weapon based on a computer game, with no corroborative evidence from anywhere else, then criticised the designers of CMNAO for not including this alleged 'feature', claiming that this omission makes their software 'unrealistic'.

I know whose side I'm on...

[biosthetique]

Originally Posted by clive bradbury

Let's not over-complicate things. What this boils down to is that you have assumed a capability for a weapon based on a computer game, with no corroborative evidence from anywhere else, then criticised the designers of CMNAO for not including this alleged 'feature', claiming that this omission makes their software 'unrealistic'.

I know whose side I'm on...

And I know that you ignore what you are talking about, siding with an individual which integrity hence anything he would talk about, is doubtful the least!...

Agreed, let's not complicate CMNAO, it is already complicated as it is, let's keep it simple stupid!

But thank you for participating, you now feel you contributed to a problem. Your parents must be proud of you!

[clive bradbury]

Originally Posted by biosthetique

And I know that you ignore what you are talking about, siding with an individual which integrity hence anything he would talk about, is doubtful the least!...

I'm sorry, but I am unable to respond to this until it is translated into grammatically correct English...

[biosthetique]

Don't be sorry!...I am confident that opinion will dissipate as soon as you will spend some quality time into you favorite local pub!