Map status 110207
Ok,
I know I’ve spoken with everyone of you on an individual basis, but I feel its’ good to bring this out in the open and decide what really makes sense and what direction to take. Plus this is good data for sake of record keeping.
So, let’s begin.
1.. CZ test results / conclusion:
We figured that the change to CZ would give RU subs a greater chance at 1st detection, but it turns out that attempting to resolve this possible issue has turned into something bigger. The problem now using a CZ is that if you know how it works, meaning that detection occurs at a defined range of 30nm, then there is opportunity that either side can exploit this SSP. In fact you won’t even need to do TMA or even calculate the speed since you basically know the end solution to TMA; the range. Therefore, CZ cannot be used. And I don’t think we can say exactly what RU subs or 688 will do or handle a situation like this, simply because everyone is different and everyone makes different choices. In closing the goal here is to give subs on both sides a chance at detection, not a promise or a guarantee.
2.. SD / 84 Buoys / bear 400 kts:
Prior to the change to CZ, SD was in place and we were convinced that SD was a problem for RU having a chance at 1st detection, but I think it depends on how you look at it. It seemed like SD reduced the chances of RU subs making 1st detection, but based on the bears’ coding of a full load of buoys capable of scanning both sides of the layer, where 50% of them are VLAD which are good for deep running contacts, SD DOES NOT affect RED SIDE chances of detection, which I figure that rings in @ 50% base, simply because of the buoys will more than likely be in position before RU subs can, and with the presence of red side acoustic ships capable of scanning both sides of the layer also, red side detection base > 50% SD also removes any room for exploit of any kind, however RU subs still have a chance of 1st detection across the board depending on spawn and any clue given by the 688 of its whereabouts(cavitating) to a listening akula. RU subs will have a greater chance of 2nd detection, and what I mean by that if detected by MAD or buoys or red surface, RU subs could be in a position to intercept. The presence of red side acoustic intel ships increases the red side base detection to over 50%, while in the same time has no effect on RU sub 1st detection. Also I just realized that taking control of the bear reduces the base detection for that moment of time because you are effectively taking the bear away from its maximum efficiency of ASW operations. While under influence, his speed is reduced and coverage is smaller and more concentrated per request of the one controlling him. For that reason we need to be mindful how and when we control the bear, but this is truly a reflection of planning on the red side more so than anything, I’d say.
3.. Test case – RU side detection average:
I figure there is a good way to test the detection base based on ideal cruising speeds for the 688. But the actual cruising speed of the 688 depends on the person and their choice of tactics and efforts of optimized stealth.
I figure this test is simple. I’ll run a script to dive the 688 and resume ideal cruising speed and course in efforts to attempt to complete the mission. At time of detection, I’ll also record the range of RU subs w/ respect to the 688. The test will include 10 data points in SP and time compression, meaning I’ll run this map 10 times, more so than dive it 10 times and hopefully achieve the same outcome. What I need to see is the number of times the 688 is detected on avg and the likelihood that RU subs can intercept (2nd detection).
4.. Closing:
A.. As far as I’m concerned, until I’m convinced that CZ can’t offer any form of exploit, or if its effectiveness can be reduced, it has no place on this map as well as the entire set. To me using CZ jeopardizes the integrity of the map(any map rather) by giving all playables the location of each other once initial contact is made. It’s not just a matter of ‘when’ it’s also a matter of ‘if’. In saying this I’m keeping replay value in mind, and I don’t see that as a positive if each time I play a map w CZ combined with what I now know about the SSP, I can know exactly where the opponent is.
B.. In theory based on a more robust design, the bear is far more effective than before meaning that red side base detection is much effective than before. In light of all the changes I still don’t think we have meaningful data about the map performance because it seems that at the going rate we keep running into ‘roadblocks’ and making changes. I’m hoping the test case will shed some light on the map performance in a much faster time. At this point, I don’t see a need to test the 688 for any reason. Detection base target for both sides is around 50%.
That’s my two cents… the floor is open…
Thanks
|