LW/Ami Missions

[Molon Labe]

Seeing as it is that the LW/Amizaur realism mod is bound to become popular, I will be creating new versions for my missions previously released for DW 1.01 (Taiwan ARG Escort, AEGIS sucker punch, Marines Winchester, and Rough Riders). I will also be releasing a LW/Ami version of a mission previously released only to NCHQ, Black Market Boomer.

These missions will feature altered acoustic conditions, starting positions, and whatever else I think needs to be changed to keep the missions playable. This ideally means engagement in 15 to 30 minutes of game time, depending on the tactics employed and objectives of the mission. I think these missions will actually prove to be better when played under this mod since there will be a lot more sneakiness involved.

I hope to complete this work in 3-4 weeks.

As for all you other misson designers, I encourage you to support the LW/Ami mod by making or altering missions to accomodate the new detection ranges of the mod. It's time to move DW forward! :arrgh!:

[LuftWolf]

Thank you Molon for starting this thread. It is something I have had in mind to do since v2.0 was on the horizon.

Amizaur and I are committed to supporting mission designers as much as possible. With this in mind, I will expedite my work on the complete unit information tables so that you know the exact parameters of each platform you have at your disposal in the Database, as well as, hopefully, write a short guide for mission design with our mod based on practical design experience and playtesting.

Please let me know if there is *anything* at all we can do to support your endevours in mission creation. :) :up:

I will post some thoughts tonight, after I have played around with creating some MP missions for use at the HyperLobby LWAMI Mod Meet, tomorrow, Thursday, 13:00 GMT.

Soon, we may have our own separate place to discuss these matters. ;)

Cheers,
David

[OKO]

I made some MP missions (5 released and 2 near release) for DW, and before your MOD, US won 4/5 of the time.
I tought it was balanced, but the "too much easy" way the buoy and helos detected subs made it really difficult for red side.

On the tonight test (i tested it yesterday also but with only 2 other guys instead of the usual 5 to 8 we have on our matches), I could see missions are now very well balanced, just because it's much harder for US to detect subs.

So finally I haven't anything to change on my scenarios !
happy for that ...

here is the url to download them if you want to take a look =>
http://okof4.free.fr/missions/DW/

scenario is from 45mn to 2h30 of game
Usually around 1h.
Give us some nice fights :|\

[LuftWolf]

Well, I haven't had a chance to do any mission design in the last day.

I will add some thoughts.

I have noticed that many "arena" style missions use high sea state to reduce detection ranges. This has made many of the missions we've run with the mod have VERY limited detection ranges, since now that we have turned down the sound inputs into the acoustics engine, all of the built in acoustical features, such as layers and more generally the type of acoustic environment, that previously had very little effect, now have a fairly strong effect in changing sonar performance. So I think now these kinds of missions can be defaulted to a more calm sea state and worked from there, rather than starting with the premise that the mission itself has to reduce detection ranges to compensate for the game engine.

Also, I'm not sure at this point which kind of missions provide the most satisfying experience in MP, arena or realistic. I can see how in the stock DB, arena style missions with conflicts occuring basically at standoff ranges would be prefered, with it being very hard to construct a MP mission that is fun, playable, realistic, AND balanced. However, encouraged by OKO's thoughts, words, and missions, I am beginning to think that designing realistic missions of MP, with each platform having specific mission tasking is a good way to go now for mission design, and also could put specific platforms in interesting situations (eg. you can play as the SW BUT you've got to deal with two bears and an Udaloy in addition to a minefield and three Akulas etc.).

I'm excited. I want to learn the Mission Editor well enough to start producing quality missions with names other than "Torpedo Seeker Test II" and "Detection Parameter Check IV." ;)

[Fish]

What do you expect, me throwing a 100 maps through the drain? :hulk:

Have to redo distances, but first have to figure what the best start distances in different conditions will be with the mod.

[Molon Labe]

Was that for me, Fish?

My thread wasn't directed at the SW, but at the community in general. Leauges have to decide on their own if they want this mod...

[Bellman]

:sunny: I will rework my MP scenarios but they were created with 'proximity' much in mind. :yep:

I have several SP scenarios in the garage at various stages from chasis only to complete but without wheels. ;)

Mainly the problem comes down to my 'head-banging' with triggers etc... :damn: :o :huh:

Havent tried it yet but I guess the sensor ranges within Editor will still be stock so the details promised
in the Lwami mod readme will be vital. :hmm:

[LuftWolf]

Well, the followup tables and charts can be expected this weekend.

I'm not sure at this point what the best way to represent the information would be, since there are no absolutely assured detection ranges, it varies greatly by conditions. Can you give me some guidence as to what your "ideal" unit and sensor table might be? I'm thinking a table with unit details including sensor assignment and then a separate table with the detection ability of each of those arrays under a single or couple of standardized conditions? Would this work for you?

I'm sorry to have made more work for mission designers than before, but I think its worth it! ;) :D

[Fish]

No ML, more in general.

Did a first test, a map played on two pc's one with stock, one with LWAMI.
With a Akula I had a visible contact in NB 10.8 nm stock game.
On the other pc, LWAMI, I had to close distance to 5.7 nm to get the same visible contact?
I must say, don't like that outcome for the following reasons:
One, gone be very difficult to find places where you can use the environmental to play hide and seek. A few seamounts and a litle island.
Second, the kilo will be useless in the future when the sonar bug is fixed.
Looking at the Akula sonar, with the mod as it is now, the Kilo need a blind stick to find a Seawolf in the water (gone be difficult anyway with the patch).
Third, the seawolf have to come dangerously close to the Akula.
Fifth, and now I am coming on slippery ice, I don't think this is real world distances. :shifty:

Now, this was just a quick test, more coming. :lol:

[LuftWolf]

Fish, for these reason I am coming to the conclusion that perhaps "arena" style missions are not meant for the mod and designers should focus of realistic mission tasking, to exploit or expose weaknesses in individual platforms, since the mod goes a long way towards removing the "generic" feel of the various platforms in play in terms of sonar performance.

The focus of the mod has shifted subtly from v1.xx to v2.xx. Originally, my plan was to address gameplay and playability issues only, when it came to light that Amizaur and I could do a "realism" mod with reasonable expectation of success, we both were excited about the prospect of shifting focus and that is what we've done. With this in mind, does it seem unreasonable that "realistic" missions would be the better way to go with a "realism" database as opposed to "arena" style death matches? :hmm:

Keep in mind, this is why we've included the quick install/uninstall... perhaps you can use stock db for arena style missions if you like them (personally I don't with the stock db, I like having to search around and my online opponents enjoy the hunt, several times we've never even fired on each other and still had a good time in the dive and considered it a success, now with deathmatches this could be hard case to make) and then make realistic MP missions with tasking for the realism DB.

Personally, I can live with the decline of arena matches for the mod if the reward is smoothly playing, balanced, ultra-realistic MP missions. I can live quite happily. :rock:

[LuftWolf]

Did a first test, a map played on two pc's one with stock, one with LWAMI.
With a Akula I had a visible contact in NB 10.8 nm stock game.
On the other pc, LWAMI, I had to close distance to 5.7 nm to get the same visible contact?

Fish, when you list detections such as this, you HAVE to give us acoustic conditions or it is not meaningful data. The mod makes certain acoustic factor MUCH more significant in determining detections.

So you might not have linear or even constant effects here in determining detection range differences.

[Bill Nichols]

:sunny: I will rework my MP scenarios but they were created with 'proximity' much in mind. :yep:

I have several SP scenarios in the garage at various stages from chasis only to complete but without wheels. ;)

Mainly the problem comes down to my 'head-banging' with triggers etc... :damn: :o :huh:



Anything I can help you with (concerning triggers)? I'm always interested in other people's SP (and MP) missions. :yep:

[Fish]

Both subs above layer.

SSP in the LWAMI mod.

http://home.hccnet.nl/wico.p/LWAMI-ssp.JPG

[Fish]

I played the same map on two pc's.


SSP in stock sonalysts.

http://home.hccnet.nl/wico.p/Stock-SSP.JPG

[Fish]

Test with two Seawolves, map identical. SSP convergence zone.

First with your mod, a sub at 5.9 nm.

http://home.hccnet.nl/wico.p/LWAMI%201.JPG

Nothing visible on NB.

http://home.hccnet.nl/wico.p/LWAMI2.JPG


Now with stock game.

http://home.hccnet.nl/wico.p/Stock1.JPG


Visible on NB (not on the pic but I could assgn a tracker).


http://home.hccnet.nl/wico.p/Stock2.JPG

[LuftWolf]

To be honest, Iwish I had a good solution for you. However, in creating the mod we have really opened up a whole new world in terms of what we can see in DW, I think anyway. I myself am extemely inexperienced in both mission design and practical tactics. My expertise in DW is strictly related to DB modelling at this point.

As such, a lot of heuristics were employed in figuring the "playability" aspects of the mod. The realism part was a process: Amizaur had realworld data and he and I worked to model it into the DB. Adjusting the bits of that for gaming was a matter of trial and error that is very much still going on.

We ARE confident about the sound levels. This has been fit from the best real-world data available. However, what I am not confident about are the settings on the passive sonars. Some may need to go up and some may need to go down in sensitivity; I personally have been very fortunate in the past day or so to run into an ABSOLUTE GURU of SC/DW modelling who is not necessarily part of our family here at subsim, and he has told me much about how the sound engine actually works.

However, to incorporate the information he has given me is going to take sometime and the effects on gameplay will be subtle, but important, especially for the things you are talking about. Specifically, increasing sensor performance on a curve for decreasing range NOT related to increase in relative noise level at the sensor surface.

So, I'm saying, in more simple terms, we are in the very middle of a work in progress and I'm neither an expert in RL or in DW. So we have to ask those who work on missions for the mod to consider themselves part of the process of exploring the real capabilities of the DW engine.

Amizaur and I (at least I know for myself) can primarily only mod because of real life time restrictions. This leaves direct testing the mod at position number 2, and play-testing of the mod at position number 3. Experimenting with mission design is whole separate issue that because of time and knowledge I know I can't fully explore. But together, mission designers and modders, we can work this out so everyone can spend hours and hours diving in the very near future, in the Alesian ASW killing-fields that DW could be. :up:

I personally thank you for your support and efforts in this direction! :rock:

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

The data you posted is consistent with our design intention. The SW does not increase sound level until it reaches 4kts, so at 6kts the increase in speed is not significant for sound level and that is about the same for both DB's, but for different reasons (in stock soundvsspeed is not very big effect).

So the SW in stock db in that situation is about at NL 64, and in our DB it is about at NL 57, and given the log scale of the sounds, that would produce those detection ranges.

If you don't think that is right then I'm not sure if there is anything I can do to convince you, unforunately. :hmm:

But I'll keep trying! :D

[Fish]

Fish, for these reason I am coming to the conclusion that perhaps "arena" style missions are not meant for the mod and designers should focus of realistic mission tasking, to exploit or expose weaknesses in individual platforms, since the mod goes a long way towards removing the "generic" feel of the various platforms in play in terms of sonar performance.

The focus of the mod has shifted subtly from v1.xx to v2.xx. Originally, my plan was to address gameplay and playability issues only, when it came to light that Amizaur and I could do a "realism" mod with reasonable expectation of success, we both were excited about the prospect of shifting focus and that is what we've done. With this in mind, does it seem unreasonable that "realistic" missions would be the better way to go with a "realism" database as opposed to "arena" style death matches? :hmm:

Keep in mind, this is why we've included the quick install/uninstall... perhaps you can use stock db for arena style missions if you like them (personally I don't with the stock db, I like having to search around and my online opponents enjoy the hunt, several times we've never even fired on each other and still had a good time in the dive and considered it a success, now with deathmatches this could be hard case to make) and then make realistic MP missions with tasking for the realism DB.

Personally, I can live with the decline of arena matches for the mod if the reward is smoothly playing, balanced, ultra-realistic MP missions. I can live quite happily. :rock:

My first impression is this mod is not workable on a longer range. Sure some enthousiastic people will use it for multiplayer, but not for long in my opinion. They will be bored at some time, when we make ultra-realistic multiplayer maps.
Cruising around for two hours, not finding anything, well most will go for the stock game.
And when we want to have some action we have to put all platforms in a bathtub.
So, it's your and Amizaur's mod, and a very good one I think, hat of, you can do with the mod what you want.
But in my opinion, as it is now, the detection ranges are not what people want in multiplayer.
I do this for 6 years now, and I think (not being arrogant I hope) I know more or less what people like.
I have read hundreds, or better thousands of dive reports.

EDIT, I am a slow writer, sorry. :cry:

PS: I will work with different speeds later tonight.

[LuftWolf]

As with any hobby, you get out of it what you are looking to get out of it.

We mod, you design, everyone plays. Some play as MH-60 and Akula, some only dive SW, some only play K335 and no other sub and others play each platforms three times a day.

I never make judgements.

Please enjoy the game as you see fit and let me know if I can help! :rock: :up:

[Fish]

I never make judgements.


I won't ask you to do. :)

Some times live forces you to do.

[LuftWolf]

Hehe...

Well, keep in mind the Sound vs. Speed effect is MUCH greater in our mod, so when platforms step on the gas there is a bigger penalty for speed.

If we wanted that effect to be realistic, then we had to lower the initial sound levels or the SW would sound like a supertanker at 38kts.

So if you can just convince players they have to go faster... well, I dunno. In any case, we are all smart people, I'm sure we can find a happy place for all of us in the DW world of ours. ;) :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Fish]

Hehe...

Well, keep in mind the Sound vs. Speed effect is MUCH greater in our mod, so when platforms step on the gas there is a bigger penalty for speed.

If we wanted that effect to be realistic, then we had to lower the initial sound levels or the SW would sound like a supertanker at 38kts.

So if you can just convince players they have to go faster... well, I dunno. In any case, we are all smart people, I'm sure we can find a happy place for all of us in the DW world of ours. ;) :rotfl: :rotfl:

I set the speed for the Seawolf to 16 knts, I was able to detect here at 10,8 nm.
I am afraid you get missions where people have a low cost on gas. :hmm:

Could you make the same mod with longer detection ranges?
Roughly 70 % of what we have with the stock version?
Just a question. :-?

[LuftWolf]

Absolutely, the process would involve increasing the NL's by a scaled figure. We could simply give each platform within a certain NL range a set NL increase.

None of these NL values have been pulled out of thin air. Amizaur calculated the standard level of background noise, and then entered the level of noise for the platform above that background noise level based on his information. So in game terms, as it stands with the mod, they are emitting the "real" amount of noise as closely as could be done. So the 688i in RL would actually emit noise out to a certain point that is fairly close to what we've got.

What is not worked out, however, is how much the passive sensors should be sensitive to that noise and at what ranges. I have recently learned that the third factor in the log scale is provided by the sensor parameters themselves, so it is simply not a matter of setting the noise levels, since the calculations are not absolutely the same for each sensor, based on their "sensitivity", which is actually a measure of how much the sound level for signal contacts is amplified above base noise by the sensor itself. :doh:

In any case, I've been assured that DW is in fact everything SCS claims it to be and much more, just the stock DB has been sanitized, with the expectation that WE, the community, would make with it what we want, as best we can.

Essentially, we can do whatever we want once we unlock the complete secrets of the DB, DW is that good. :up:

[LuftWolf]

I should also add, that while the SeaWolves' primary concern is sub vs sub engagements, and in deed this mod does very much change tactics and mission design for that, the surface/air vs sub game has been dramatically more balanced by the mod, and I can say this based on OKO's experience and the experience I have just had playing with OKO and the MS crew. So far, since they have gone with the mod, I believe the Red subs are able to penetrate complex ASW screens with MH-60's, P-3's, and AEGIS SAG's, mostly human controlled, with about 50% success, depending on how much people are on their game and of course the ever present luck and random factors, a great improvement in balance performance with missions that, although designed for the stock DB, were setup with RL parameters in mind in the first place, so reasonable distances and starting points were there from the beginning, its just the detection ranges for buoys etc were WAY too big for the missions to work.

[Bill Nichols]

I made some MP missions (5 released and 2 near release) for DW, and before your MOD, US won 4/5 of the time.
I tought it was balanced, but the "too much easy" way the buoy and helos detected subs made it really difficult for red side.

On the tonight test (i tested it yesterday also but with only 2 other guys instead of the usual 5 to 8 we have on our matches), I could see missions are now very well balanced, just because it's much harder for US to detect subs.

So finally I haven't anything to change on my scenarios !
happy for that ...

here is the url to download them if you want to take a look =>
http://okof4.free.fr/missions/DW/

scenario is from 45mn to 2h30 of game
Usually around 1h.
Give us some nice fights :|\

Oko -- let me know when you are ready to release your new missions :up:

[Molon Labe]

I haven't played with 2.01 yet, but in 2.0 the Seawolf was ridiculously quiet, even at high speed. I think this has been fixed in 2.01.

A few things to keep in mind when criticising detection ranges


First, the Seawolf should have a sound level and sensor advantage over even the newest Akulas; she was built to keep that edge...although that edge is much smaller now than it was during the cold war.

Second, the 'even' battle in the mod is the 688I v. Akula. This corresponds closely to real life noise levels; the 688I likely has better sensors, however.

Third, and this is a balance issue, in stock DW Akulas are kicking American sub's asses because of the uber-effective aTMA + SS-N-27ASW combination. Closer detection ranges mean less of an opportunity to use missile weapons, which evens the odds quite a bit. Keep in mind that the US removed missile-torps from their subs because it is unlikey that they would be needed because the ranges at which they are usefull is beyond normal sonar range...

[Bellman]

:sunny: Bill appologise for not answering sooner - I have only just returned to this thread.

I greatly appreciate your kind offer and will take you up on it, in about a weeks time.

I have been deconstructing some of OKOs 'open' scenarios to attempt to figure out triggers.

Fish was a great help on dynamic groups. :lol: Although I never figured out how he swung a phantom Nimitz
into a scenario which he denied was there. These 'Wizards' :roll: :o :hmm:

I swear I was on the wagon. :yep:

First I have to deconstruct my head :damn: But concentration wavered with the excellent LWAMI seducing attention. :rock:

[OKO]

don't forget to reconstruct after deconstruct

:rotfl:

[OKO]

Oko -- let me know when you are ready to release your new missions :up:

Bill ...
you will be the first informed when I will 'at last' make the english briefings of the next two missions.
Maybe I look a bit familiar with english on board, but on a briefing, when you need accurate and technical language, I really have problems.

At this time I have 2 missions ready to release.
the most 'sophisticated' (doesn't mean the best ...) missions I made.
But the briefs are long and difficult to make.

Not a joke, it's my main problem actually.
I'll do my best to finish these briefs ASAP.
But I can't release missions without it.

And it's an honor for me you ask for my next scenarios.

[LuftWolf]

Ok guys, I've had a very busy weekend.

I am going to do some work on the unit tables and charts for the mod tonight, so expect them, conservatively, sometime early next week or so.

Sorry about the delays in this, but I'm not necessarily looking forward to this most tedious aspect of the otherwise glory-filled modding lifestyle. :lol: :rotfl:

Also, any input on what you believe would be the most effective way to present this information, and what information you'd like to see included, is MOST appreciated! :know: :rock:

[Molon Labe]

Now with stock game.

http://home.hccnet.nl/wico.p/Stock1.JPG


Visible on NB (not on the pic but I could assgn a tracker).


http://home.hccnet.nl/wico.p/Stock2.JPG

I can see that line clear as day! Take your sunglasses off!

[Fish]

Now with stock game.

http://home.hccnet.nl/wico.p/Stock1.JPG


Visible on NB (not on the pic but I could assgn a tracker).


http://home.hccnet.nl/wico.p/Stock2.JPG

I can see that line clear as day! Take your sunglasses off!

You must be kidding? :cool:

[Bellman]

Yes its there loud and clear - shows well with monitor display settings adjusted with the Tacman Test image.

I run with it as a saved setup - its a bit hard on the eyes, but you get used to it and I switch it on and off as required.

My Display settins are :-
Max. Digital vibrance.
103% Brightness.
100% contrast.
2.09 Gamma.

This is a feature which may vary a lot between cards - some may see a clear line and others nothing.

[Bellman]

:lol: Sorry Typo - not wishing to burn-out your eveballs - read:
MIN Digital Vibrance.
:rotfl:

[Fish]

I fixed the problem, more or less. :cool:

[LuftWolf]

Guys, this has been an UNBELIEVABLY bad week for modding and gaming in general, so I haven't done any serious work on your charts and tables. I am very very sorry that I've left you hanging for this long.

I am taking a short trip and should be back to work soon.

I should add that I only have a few more months with you guys, as after that I am enlisting in the US Marine Corps. :fff: :rock:

[darksythe]

Fair Winds And Following Seas. Ill see yah for that dive at 0500Z

[Driftwood]

Godspeed and keep your head down Luftwolf! :up:

[Fish]

We gone miss you! :(

[Bill Nichols]

I should add that I only have a few more months with you guys, as after that I am enlisting in the US Marine Corps. :fff: :rock:

Make the most of your time with us, while you still can :sunny:

[Molon Labe]

Yeah, what Bill said! :ping:

We should dive this weekend....

[Bellman]

:sunny:

Thanks for all you've done and good luck. :up:

[Molon Labe]

Black Market Boomer v2.0, designed for LW/Ami 2.1, is now posted on Subguru. Thanks, Bill!

[LuftWolf]

Thank you very much for your encouragement gentlemen! :up: :rock:

I'm going to make the most of my time here, and then, maybe after bootcamp, I can still do some diving on my promised "most weekends off"... :hmm: Although, I would neither be disappointed nor surprised if I was a bit too busy chasing down the baddies. :rock: :|\

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

Molon,

Thank you VERY much for you mission release, it is the mission designers who will ultimately determine the success of the various modification programs currently in the works, both DWX and our project. :up:

OKO also gets a big :up: for his support as a mission designer.

Thank you again,
David

PS I was doing recruiting stuff last week/weekend, so... no charts or tables yet, I PROMISE this week. :doh: :stare: :sunny:

[Bill Nichols]

You might want to check out Miika's "Future Fleet" missions (24 of them!). Miika tells me that he was using the L&A Realism Mod when he made those scenarios.

[LuftWolf]

Thanks Bill and Miika, I wasn't aware of that. :up: :sunny:

[Molon Labe]

Rough Riders v2.0 is now available on Subguru.com. This mission has been redesigned for play with the LW/Ami mod. The P-3 is still a force to be reckoned with, but will actually have to work for its kills now!

Thanks for posting, Bill!

And thanks for the Mod, LW and Amizaur. Now people can play this mission the way it was meant to be played!

[LuftWolf]

Well, I owe you guys an apology because the supplimental documentation has not been delivered.

I have been very busy getting myself ready for USMC Boot Camp and my head has been elsewhere.

I will work on them as I have time, I'm sorry.

Cheers,
David

[Bellman]

I have revised the six MP scenarios, featured on SubGuru, for the LwAmi mod. and they have just been
forwarded to Bill in the hope that he will list them.

With my SP scenarios, under construction, I propose adapting them to
incorporate 1.2 and LwAmi developments.

More anon.

[Bill Nichols]

On my site, now.

Question - What do you find is most often needed, when modifying missions for LwAMI?

[LuftWolf]

Some of the mission designers can answer this one, but I'd specifically take note of the reduced sonar detection ranges and make sure that you don't start your platforms so far apart that there is little chance that the player will find his or her target, or give them a bit of assistance in finding the target. For example, air-platforms will have great difficulty in finding slow modern submerged targets without a linking TACTASS-equipped ship or a datum.

Also, some things are now possible, like submarine mining and SLAM-ER land attacks from P-3.

As Molon said, the changes aren't earth-shatting, but they allow the mission designer much more freedom in determing the in-game detection ranges by tweaking the environmental conditions. So, I'd say that the environmental conditions have a much greater effect on the acoustic parameters, so more consideration is required in the initial setup of the mission.

Let me know if you need any more help, Bill! :up:

[LuftWolf]

One more thing.

Since all of the platforms, especially the submerged platforms, now all have working and effective passive sonars, there is much more flexibility in terms of getting various platforms to behave as they should in terms of engaging targets.

I believe that designers can now think much more in terms of specific AI platform interaction, rather than having many of the platforms simply be moving targets, as in the stock DB no submarines, other than playables, had effective passive sonars.

Honestly, other than the detection ranges, I believe this is the most fundamental change for mission designers.

[Bellman]

:) Bill I am not sure whether your question was addressed to me. LW has indicated some considerations.

MP sub v sub vanilla scenarios present a smaller challenge in modification than those scenarios with complex
inter-relationships of sensor and weapon performance between elements of Battle Groups.
That represents a little more effort.

For my part with my modifications to MP sub v sub I have adjusted the SS, the dynamic locations and
environmental conditions where appropriate.

Fortunately my vanilla MP scenario pack was designed with the criteria of relatively close starting locations
hence revealing titles such as:-
A Close Encounter.
A Closed Circuit.
A Merry go round.
A Seamount circus.

And the need to revisit triggers, scripts, dynamic groups was not a requirement in tweaking for LwAmi.

My next task is to bring to fruition the design of some more ambitious and complex MP scenarios
so modification will entail a complete rethink.

For example, if I have a blue Battle Group and red one negotiating islands with formation screens.
The sensor and weapon performances are critical to the platform selection, positioning, and waypointing.
This knocks-on in implementing a 'story-line' to changes in goals, scripts and triggers.

I am fortunate in not having rolled-out this product from the hanger
as I can rethink and modify - once the 1.2 patch and any resulting, or contemporary, LwAmi adjustments are completed.

I am hoping that the more experienced designers, who have been through the process of modding for LwAmi
will contribute some feedback. ;)

[FERdeBOER]

How exatly can I "update" the missions I created for adecuate to LwAmi 2.03?

Is just a matter of testing the missions again and see if they work properly, isn't it?

Thanks

[LuftWolf]

This is partially my fault for not releasing the guide for mission designers that I had promised to do.

Now that LWAMI 2.03 has proven itself to be a stable and we are more or less on hiatus while 1.02x is in BETA, I think I will take the time to do that.

The biggest differences for mission designers are the reduced detection ranges, and the expectation of realistic and aggressive AI platform performance due to the fact that now they have working sonars.

Other than that, in terms of specific, make sure you don't have an VLADs in shallow water... I can't think of any other specific things at the moment.

Basically, just read throught the readme and familiarize yourself with the changes made, and if anything in your missions strikes you as being out of place now, then I'd say go back and correct it.

Let me know if you have an questions, I'm ALL about supporting the mission designers. :up:

[FERdeBOER]

All right, thank you very much.

Er... Luft.... do you live here in the forum? :rotfl:

Bad joke, thak you for your fast answers. Is a pleasure when having an answer so fast. :up: :up:

[LuftWolf]

Er... Luft.... do you live here in the forum?

Maybe... :88)

:rotfl:

[Molon Labe]

The detection ranges are the biggest factor.

You also might want to take into consideration the changes of weapon specifications and performance. For example, RAM SAMs work, so if you want to hit something that uses them, you might need more firepower. AEGIS performance is better, so you'll have more success preventing missile attacks by throwing in DDG/CG escorts. The SS-N-27 is more dangerous now, too....

[LuftWolf]

Question to the mission designers:

Have you guys found a reliable way to make SSGN's fire from long range on contacts not derived from the firing platform's sensors?

[LuftWolf]

Well, I'm sure you guys know this, but I have found that you can use a script with the EnterSolution command on the target platform and then follow that command with an engage script, and it works beautifully!

Now we just need to find a way to get the SSGN to launch more missiles and it's all good! :D

I'll start looking at some database things... now it looks like the SSGN's will fire a salvo of four. I'll see if I can get them to fire more missiles by simply increasing the targets, but I'll probably have to make some simple database changes, and maybe a doctrine edit, but hopefully not, and we can get SSGN's launching salvoes at long distance! :rock:

[LuftWolf]

Yes, it looks like we are going to have to do a combined database/doctrine edit for this one, but it should be possible to make a salvo doctrine for the SSGN's.

And if you didn't know how to make them fire at targets at long range with scripts, now you do! :up:

[LuftWolf]

Hmm... it seems this script combination doesn't always work, sometimes the solution gets dropped, even if it is marked "persistent."

We'll see what we can do about this in doctrine and developing some scripting parameters for you to work with.

If any of you have found a reliable way of doing this, that would help us a lot! :up:

[Bill Nichols]

Well, I'm sure you guys know this, but I have found that you can use a script with the EnterSolution command on the target platform and then follow that command with an engage script, and it works beautifully!



I didn't know that! I've been 'forcing' it by creating a UAV to give the targeting info, then removing it (hopefully before the player notices!)

[LuftWolf]

It works sometimes, but not always... we are looking at some doctrine solutions they may help the scripts work (some times they drop the track before they fire).

[Molon Labe]

Well, I'm sure you guys know this, but I have found that you can use a script with the EnterSolution command on the target platform and then follow that command with an engage script, and it works beautifully!



I didn't know that! I've been 'forcing' it by creating a UAV to give the targeting info, then removing it (hopefully before the player notices!)

Too late! :arrgh!:

[OKO]

Engage script don't need any Entersolution to work
If you ask an AI platform to engage another one, the platform will immediatly receive the position of the target.

To see it just test this :
put a sub in deep water, and an Orion in the air, more than 25 miles away, and another helo (will be you) just here to check the experience
Use a destination trigger for the Orion, with Engage script on the sub
As soon as the trigger is fired, the sub will appear on the link

This prove the Engage script doesn't need at all Entersolution script.

[Bellman]

Sacre Bleu !! Who will give us a Mission Designers guide, of Tacman quality, to steer us through the c**p
of triggers and scripts'. Its a Sargossa Sea of turgidity and a miasma of complexity.:down: :damn:

Iif experts cant agree what hope have we lesser mortals ? :roll: :o :stare: :hmm:

[LuftWolf]

Ah, OKO, you are right! :)

With a linking platform, like an E-3, the Oscars will maintain their tracks and engage all the time!

The only things that have to be worked on then are the salvo size! Right now they fire about three-five salvoes of four at a time. If you put three Oscars together, that's A LOT of firepower.

Although, with the new AEGIS engagement parameters, a single Oscar can't even get a single hit on an Arleigh Burke DDG... ;)

This should be so much easier now! :yep: :D

[LuftWolf]

Well guess what! :hmm:

Oscars WILL salvo more than four missiles at a time... in fact, with a good link contact on multiple targets, they will salvo four missiles PER TARGET. I just got an Oscar SSGN to fire basically all of its missiles at one time in two long salvoes, with a slight break, at a stick of four vessels.

BUT!!! If you have two Oscars stalking the convoy, only the closest one will fire! :doh: I'm working on trying to figure this out. :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

[FERdeBOER]

The only things that have to be worked on then are the salvo size! Right now they fire about three-five salvoes of four at a time. If you put three Oscars together, that's A LOT of firepower.



I think that's the idea of an Oscar, isn't it? You need a lot of firepower to overhelm the carrier group defenses and try to sink the carrier... :hmm:

It's great to know how to make "sure" engages. Thanks! :up:

[LuftWolf]

Yes, I'm trying to get them to fire as many missiles as possible at Carrier groups and SAG's.

I've started a new thread, as I think this is a worthwhile topic.

[OKO]

The SS-N-27 is more dangerous now, too....


hmmm Molon, considering the new seeker perf of them, I think they are really less dangerous, even if more accurate (but I used a board very accurate to launch them)

I could say, with a Seawolf at 2000ft and even with the 688i at 1500, SS-N-27 is not a very dangerous thing.
I wasn't hit by one of them from the date I installed LWAMI.
I saw them falling quite close, but was never locked, because I was too deep for them.
But I must admit I didn't met so much Akula driver ....
Of course, things are different if you are close to surface ...

And with the range modification on ASW missiles, this is true that AI are WAY more accurate than before ! Subs and surface ship with SUBROC.
be detected by a Spruance in an Akula, and you will feel it very hard !
that's very nice.

[Molon Labe]

The SS-N-27 is more dangerous now, too....


hmmm Molon, considering the new seeker perf of them, I think they are really less dangerous, even if more accurate (but I used a board very accurate to launch them)

I could say, with a Seawolf at 2000ft and even with the 688i at 1500, SS-N-27 is not a very dangerous thing.
I wasn't hit by one of them from the date I installed LWAMI.
I saw them falling quite close, but was never locked, because I was too deep for them.
But I must admit I didn't met so much Akula driver ....
Of course, things are different if you are close to surface ...

And with the range modification on ASW missiles, this is true that AI are WAY more accurate than before ! Subs and surface ship with SUBROC.
be detected by a Spruance in an Akula, and you will feel it very hard !
that's very nice.

I was actually talking about the ASM; the matchup between the skimmers and ASMs is something that needs to be taken account in mission design.

The -27 ASW is definitely less powerful now, but then again decoys are less effective, so I'm undecided on the effect on those yet.

[Mau]

Yes,

Never forget the best platform in this game... of course the OHP!!
And I think and hope that DW is not only an ASW game.
Yes a big part of it.... but let`s not forget the other aspects (after all it is call Dangerous waters)
So thanks to LuftWolf, Molon Labe, Amizaur and OKO who are not forgeting that aspect of the game.

Molon Labe, I will be doing some more test on the SM-2 and try to see clearer on the FCR/CWI issues.
I think it is still playable though
Let me know if you find more stuff

thanks

[Molon Labe]

The CWI issue is annoying but not really a show-stopper.

The FFG player just has to try not to panic so much that he clicks the reload button early. As for FFG drivers who do it on purpose, the replay will show this and then the rest of us just don't play with him/her again.

[Lane]

"Man I love to look at you Vets guys screenshots"
Talking about all this High Teck stuff :D :D

Lane :D

[Lane]

Hey Molon Labe,

I just live approx 40 to 50 miles from you :D You say you are in
Bloomington, IN
I am west of you over at Linton, IN
Lane :D :D