The LWAMI 3.11 Preview Thread

[Seamutt]

Now the game comes with 7 diferent platforms and its quite a feat to truly master one less alone all of them.

I agree, In DW it takes about 100 hours on a platform before you really know whats going on because there is just so much detail and stuff going on. Then you can start completing missions successfully without needing to start over or load a saved game. It still doesn't happen as often as I would like. It feels so good when I pass a well designed mission on the first try.

"hey I got the game for 2 weeks and I mastered all platforms - why arent there more and why the heck didnt they include XY platform ...?"

If they use autocrew at every station they are missing the game. Can you even call it playing the game if you use all the autocrews?

Oh and One shot, thanks for the Airborne Operations Manual. It really helped me get a hold on things in the beginning. The charts are useful too, especially the buoy dropping ranges. I have it laminated on my desk.

[OneShot]

Thanks ... glad It helped.

Btw. hopefully you have the most recent version available here.

Game version : 1.04 / Manual : 2.0 / LwAmi : 3.08

Cheers
OS

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by OneShot

Now the game comes with 7 diferent platforms and its quite a feat to truly master one less alone all of them. And to be frank - whats really annoying in my eyes is when people come on say "hey I got the game for 2 weeks and I mastered all platforms - why arent there more and why the heck didnt they include XY platform ...?" I seriously doubt that those have even one platform down pat.

Way to miss the reason for people wanting more than the standard 7 models included in the game. And its pure mythos that its difficult to master 1 let alone 7 units. Once you master the basics of ASW, of manual tma and evasion tactics, the seawolf, the akula, the 688 or even the kilo are the same. The differences are so small that once you've mastered the concepts using one or the other shouldn't matter at all.
The really difficult platform to master is the frigate, and only because of the number of stations, basically twice that of the other units. And in multiplayer it is designed to be crewed with 2 or 3 players.
People want more units because it enhaces immersiveness. What about designing a mission where japanese forces come up against cinese ones. Do we have to use a hypothetical japanised 688 or isn't it better to have a sub of the Harushio class ? What about scenarios where Germany or Italy have stakes ? Are we going to want to use akulas and 688 instead of Type 212s ?
Its a very condescending attitude to say that we should not aspire to have more units. Lwami is a fabulous mod, but it has the same conceptual limits of the standard game. You're forever constrained to design missions around seawolfs, 688, akulas and kilos. What if you want an opfor maritime patrol aircraft ? In the end more choice is better. Better for players, better for mission design and better for immersiveness.

[dd149]

I have to agree with Goldorak, for sure in the US, you might be facing legal issues with Sonalysts, and we all understand that you don't want to be paying back a good New York lawyer for the next ten years, but it doesn't mean that new unites are useless. Look at DWX, the gameplay has been tremendoulsy improved not only by adding playables but also by removing the bugs that Sonlaysts left in the game with patch 1.04. Your work is fantatstic and we fully respect you decision not to touch the game code and only tweak the data base, 3d models and to some extent doctrines, but whats the real difference? DWX plus Lwami, man that would be an even greater game. Many recent multiplayer and multinational sessions would maybe not attract so many peaople without the possibility to play on different platforms.

[Molon Labe]

FYI, after some prodding by To Be, I've split the "LA SSN" into the LOS ANGELES FLT I and FLT II. The boats of the FLT II class use the same entity numbers as the boats they replace. I've tested for backwards compatibility and it hasn't been a problem.

So, SSNs 719-750 now have VLS cells and have a PSL between the FLT Is and 688(I)s.

[OneShot]

Well make it three different platforms then ... sub, surface and airborne ... still different enough considering all three use different tactics.

As far as adding "new" playable platforms ... all you get are a different name and a different 3D model because according to your logic when you get down to it all subs are the same (as are the surface and air units). Now striping away the exteriors and the name of the unit you just have the stations which are generic enough ... basically you got a "western" and an "eastern" set of them (at least in the subs).

Just speaking for plain old me - thats quite enough and imersive enough because when I sit down and play the way the stations look and what 3D model I'm sitting in becomes secondary, because I'm quite preoccupied with hunting my adversary.

As far as mission building goes ... the only important thing for me is having enough and diverse AI units.

Again, those are just my own 2cts ... no condescending intended.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by OneShot

Well make it three different platforms then ... sub, surface and airborne ... still different enough considering all three use different tactics.

Yes this was the biggest enchancement of DW over SC. Complete 3d coverge of the battlefield in terms of units.

As far as adding "new" playable platforms ... all you get are a different name and a different 3D model because according to your logic when you get down to it all subs are the same (as are the surface and air units). Now striping away the exteriors and the name of the unit you just have the stations which are generic enough ... basically you got a "western" and an "eastern" set of them (at least in the subs).

Ah this is the eternal debate isn't it ? The same arguments were put forward in the Falcon 4 community when new airplanes and even aircraft carriers (for naval ops) started appearing. In the end whats the reason since all the units have to share the same "code" as that of the F-16 ? The answer is the same, short of having the simulation engine simulate each and every unit in its peculiar way, all units have to share the code. What distinguishes them are the weapons, maybe flight profiles etc... But the radar models and other things that are hardcoded well they remain fixed whatever airplane you choose.
This is more a failing of the game than of the mod. And in the end what you gain is much more than what you theoretically lose. And more importantly modding keeps the game alive.

Just speaking for plain old me - thats quite enough and imersive enough because when I sit down and play the way the stations look and what 3D model I'm sitting in becomes secondary, because I'm quite preoccupied with hunting my adversary.

Well we shall have to agree to disagree. Its not just the stations that are the same, although in RA the modders have gone far to change the aesthetics of the different stations. Even if the underlying code is the same, the graphics are not. And this adds to the immersiveness. Also the different units have different weapons, different performance charts etc... So its not correct to say that all the units are the same. And another thing, RA fixes long standing and new bugs of the navalsimengine. You can't be really against it. I suppose you would be even more supportive of Lwami if the lwammi modders could somehow fix bugs in the navalsimengine without adding new units. So you see, its not just a matter of adding new units. The whole sim is improved, and with RA you can stay with your standard akula, seawolf, kilos and 688 if you want.

As far as mission building goes ... the only important thing for me is having enough and diverse AI units.

Its too bad, because if you had experienced how missions are designed and played in the french, italian and polish communities you would be all over RA.

Again, those are just my own 2cts ... no condescending intended.

As the latins used to say "de gustibus non est disputandum".

[dd149]

Could not say it better Goldorakbut no offense intended anyway, the community is one even if members do not always share same opinions on everything.
Let us dream about a game which could use all the developments, it is maybe not so far awayWe are already co operating for debugging and multiplayer sessions internationally, and for example Millsab mod included models by Tlam Strike as well as some parts by Lwami and RA, with their authorization obviously, so it can happen.

[Darkhunter]

I love LWAMI mod but I gotta admit I always look to see if new platforms will be included in the future. I still need to check out the RA mod, just haven't downloaded it yet.

If new platforms are simply for aesthetic purposes than I don't care too much as you could essentially call it a "model pack" at that point; however, if they include new weapons or the performance of the platform is noticeably different then I'm all for it. The submarine, surface, and air dynamic within this game creates the much needed versatility in play styles. Including different platforms, if they actually perform differently, makes the dynamic even more diversified. If the rules or reality needs to broken a little bit then that's okay in my opinion. I'm sure others will disagree. I don't know too much about S-3 Vikings, but it'd be great to be able to control (yes, I know the aircraft AI is broken to hell but one can dream!). That, or an F/A-18E. Ohhhh yeah.

Anyways, LWAMI still rocks. You modders make this game so worthwhile, I'm just happy to see people are willing to do this and don't charge us!

[Molon Labe]

Some of the new platforms do look cool, but I can assure you they aren't just there for aesthetic purposes. Having them around gives mission designers more flexibility to create compelling missions, and they all have appropriate specifications, weapons, and sensors and contribute meaningfully to the threat environment.

Hell, just look at the Talwar. No new model there, just a reused ugly stock Krivak. Lots of new capabilities though... new main SAM, point defense SAMs, VLS antiship missiles (loadout varies by hull #), new air search radar, slightly improved RCS.

EDIT: oh, wait, the Talwar isn't in 3.10. I've said too much!

[Darkhunter]

oh man! Nice!!! Looking forward to it!

[Molon Labe]

Alright, I think we're far enough along towards a release that I can tell you guys you can expect v 3.11 soon. We do not have an exact timetable, but we're definitely close.

[sertore]

Great ML!
A new version of LWAMI is always welcome and new unit capabilities expand the editor choices a lot.

[dd149]

Excellent news, we look forward to it, DW has never been better and is still improving, the ultinational online games are becoming more frequent and more interesting. This is due to the good work of people like Lwami and RA team , and the debugging support of the community. Keep on the good work.

[Molon Labe]

If you've been following this thread, this probably isn't news, but it summarizes it nicely:

Originally Posted by LWAMI 3.11 Manual

New In Version 3.11

No, you don't have to read the whole manual a second time to find out what's new.

· Torpedo base PSLs have been reduced in most cases, especially for modern electric torpedoes.
· The torpedo sound-speed relationship has been steepened--meaning that setting a torpedo below its maximum speed will significantly increase its stealth.
· Passive torpedo seeker performance has been improved, but not to the point that they were at in stock DW. They are now very effective against surface ships--especially combined with the stealth and range benefits of being run slower. Submarines are generally not at risk unless they are very noisy.
· Sonar profiles have been completely redone to make classification easier and more realistic. See section 1.1.4.
· The Kilo-Improved's MGK-400EM (cylindrical and conformal) sonar has been upgraded slightly. This sonar has also been installed on China's Project 877EKM Kilos.
· Mines, other than bottom mines, that did not have a visual signature were given one, which will allow ships and aircraft to spot them on the surface. Aircraft might see them in shallow water if they're close enough.
· Visual sensor performance has been increased so that (in clear weather) it is equivalent to what a human player can achieve at the FFG's lookout station.
· Aircraft now have two visual sensors; one for detecting submerged submarines, another for everything else (without the former's range penalty).
· The MH-60 will now drop sonobuoys when set to the Sonobuoy Search tactic in the mission editor.
· Fixed-wing aircraft will fly into the ground much less often. They will also not attack surface targets with their guns, as that was the cause of their CFITs.
· Lots of new models (including DARPA ACTUV imports) and platforms!

About 260 new "objects" in the database (an object has a specific model and sensor/weapons fit so there is some duplication when countries have similar platforms).