Q about Weapon Effictiveness

Hawk66 · 08-28-07, 01:13 PM

Hi,

I've started to work on improving the doctrines for Fighters and made some progress. In my test scenarios (I use a small 'cold war' set F14s against Fighters and TU-142s to test typical missile ranges (Aim-54/Aim-120/Aim-9)) and it looks to me, that the overall Hit% of the AAMs are too high.

I've had a look at the database (use the newest LWAMI version of course ;-)) and the Aim-54c for example has a Wpn Effectivenes of 100. Does that mean, that this weapon has a basic Hit % of 100 ? (minus chaff effectiveness in the end result).

I know from my former experience with the Harpoon simulation, that AAMs had only a Hit% of ~80 (minus modifiers for chaff,ECM, defensive maneuvers etc.) and the end Hit% was only about 40-60.

Is there any reason for this high weapon effectiveness in DW?

Thanks for feedback.

LuftWolf · 08-28-07, 05:26 PM

No particular reason, other than that the database is pretty big, and we haven't gotten to it yet.

The list of things that needed to be fixed from stock DW was in the hundreds, so that was pretty far down the list.

A project is currently in the works to recraft the whole database, however, I am not directly involved in the work at this time, so it is not clear when this will be available.

If you are interested in tuning your own database, there is nothing wrong with changing the weapon effectiveness of missiles to something less than 100, it functions as a simple percentage chance of failure when the missile is otherwise successful in intercepting the target.

Cheers,
David

Hawk66 · 08-29-07, 12:19 PM

I wasn't aware of the db redesign project, sounds good.

From my understanding ECM Jammers (I mean the ECMJammer DBCM flag) are not taken into consideration during 'runtime' as well, is that correct? Do you plan to address this in the doctrines in one of the next LWAMI versions?

LuftWolf · 08-29-07, 01:54 PM

All the things related to the Jammers and several other sensor types are holdovers from Fleet Command and have been disabled at the level of the DW engine. SCS simply did not remove them from the database, although they could have if they wanted to, at least for the retail version of the software.

Cheers,
David

Hawk66 · 08-29-07, 02:15 PM

I see.

A basic workaround could be to mark all the platforms which have defensive ECM in the proper doctrine files (for example AirEvadeMissile) and use a dynamic assignment of the chaffIdx in CounterMeasureIdx chaffIdx.
So, for example there could be a second type of chaff with a higher WeaponEffectiveness for those platforms, which have ECM.

But it's a very ugly workaround, I know ;-) and perhaps there is a sideeffect which I'm not aware of.

LuftWolf · 08-29-07, 06:26 PM

That has a possibility of working... however, that is simply a more effective anti-weapon counter-measure, it would not simulate the effect of a AEW aircraft or dedicated jamming system.

I've given it a lot of thought and came up blank, I'd really love it if someone else could figure it out.

Cheers,
David

GrayOwl · 08-31-07, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawk66

Hi,

I've started to work on improving the doctrines for Fighters and made some progress. In my test scenarios (I use a small 'cold war' set F14s against Fighters and TU-142s to test typical missile ranges (Aim-54/Aim-120/Aim-9)) and it looks to me, that the overall Hit% of the AAMs are too high.

I've had a look at the database (use the newest LWAMI version of course ;-)) and the Aim-54c for example has a Wpn Effectivenes of 100. Does that mean, that this weapon has a basic Hit % of 100 ? (minus chaff effectiveness in the end result).

I know from my former experience with the Harpoon simulation, that AAMs had only a Hit% of ~80 (minus modifiers for chaff,ECM, defensive maneuvers etc.) and the end Hit% was only about 40-60.

Is there any reason for this high weapon effectiveness in DW?

Thanks for feedback.

From Harpoon DB building guide:

ECM Types

Originally, a more detailed ECM model was intended for Harpoon II. Circumstances prevented its implementation however. Though these checkboxes
can be marked, they have no game effect.

Hawk66 · 09-02-07, 03:04 AM

I don't remember it exactly, so I can be in error: Defensive ECM pods were just a modifier like chaff (during evaluating the battle result) and ActiveJammers were just basic modelled or didn't work at all. Don't know how it's fixed in H3.

Another topic: I've seen, that all ATA missiles have a weapon radar assigned, even the semi-active ones. Wouldn't it be correct to enable the 'guidance' flag to simulate semic-active missiles or how does that stuff work in DW?

During my tests to improve the FigherDoctrines I've seen, that even when the firing platform is killed its semic-active missiles hit targets.

LuftWolf · 09-02-07, 02:33 PM

Trying to get rid of the active seeker on the semi-active missiles is high on the list of things to do for the project of redoing the database.

I'm not sure it's possible given the DW engine, but I'll look at it closely.

Cheers,
David

08-28-07, 01:13 PM	#1
Hawk66 Samurai Navy Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Germany Posts: 597 Downloads: 36 Uploads: 0	Q about Weapon Effictiveness Hi, I've started to work on improving the doctrines for Fighters and made some progress. In my test scenarios (I use a small 'cold war' set F14s against Fighters and TU-142s to test typical missile ranges (Aim-54/Aim-120/Aim-9)) and it looks to me, that the overall Hit% of the AAMs are too high. I've had a look at the database (use the newest LWAMI version of course ;-)) and the Aim-54c for example has a Wpn Effectivenes of 100. Does that mean, that this weapon has a basic Hit % of 100 ? (minus chaff effectiveness in the end result). I know from my former experience with the Harpoon simulation, that AAMs had only a Hit% of ~80 (minus modifiers for chaff,ECM, defensive maneuvers etc.) and the end Hit% was only about 40-60. Is there any reason for this high weapon effectiveness in DW? Thanks for feedback.

08-28-07, 05:26 PM	#2
LuftWolf Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2005 Location: Free New York Posts: 3,167 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	No particular reason, other than that the database is pretty big, and we haven't gotten to it yet. The list of things that needed to be fixed from stock DW was in the hundreds, so that was pretty far down the list. A project is currently in the works to recraft the whole database, however, I am not directly involved in the work at this time, so it is not clear when this will be available. If you are interested in tuning your own database, there is nothing wrong with changing the weapon effectiveness of missiles to something less than 100, it functions as a simple percentage chance of failure when the missile is otherwise successful in intercepting the target. Cheers, David __________________ LW

08-29-07, 01:54 PM	#4
LuftWolf Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2005 Location: Free New York Posts: 3,167 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	All the things related to the Jammers and several other sensor types are holdovers from Fleet Command and have been disabled at the level of the DW engine. SCS simply did not remove them from the database, although they could have if they wanted to, at least for the retail version of the software. Cheers, David __________________ LW

08-29-07, 06:26 PM	#6
LuftWolf Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2005 Location: Free New York Posts: 3,167 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	That has a possibility of working... however, that is simply a more effective anti-weapon counter-measure, it would not simulate the effect of a AEW aircraft or dedicated jamming system. I've given it a lot of thought and came up blank, I'd really love it if someone else could figure it out. Cheers, David __________________ LW

09-02-07, 02:33 PM	#9
LuftWolf Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2005 Location: Free New York Posts: 3,167 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	Trying to get rid of the active seeker on the semi-active missiles is high on the list of things to do for the project of redoing the database. I'm not sure it's possible given the DW engine, but I'll look at it closely. Cheers, David __________________ LW

08-29-07, 12:19 PM	#3
Hawk66 Samurai Navy Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Germany Posts: 597 Downloads: 36 Uploads: 0	I wasn't aware of the db redesign project, sounds good. From my understanding ECM Jammers (I mean the ECMJammer DBCM flag) are not taken into consideration during 'runtime' as well, is that correct? Do you plan to address this in the doctrines in one of the next LWAMI versions?

08-29-07, 02:15 PM	#5
Hawk66 Samurai Navy Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Germany Posts: 597 Downloads: 36 Uploads: 0	I see. A basic workaround could be to mark all the platforms which have defensive ECM in the proper doctrine files (for example AirEvadeMissile) and use a dynamic assignment of the chaffIdx in CounterMeasureIdx chaffIdx. So, for example there could be a second type of chaff with a higher WeaponEffectiveness for those platforms, which have ECM. But it's a very ugly workaround, I know ;-) and perhaps there is a sideeffect which I'm not aware of.

09-02-07, 03:04 AM	#8
Hawk66 Samurai Navy Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Germany Posts: 597 Downloads: 36 Uploads: 0	I don't remember it exactly, so I can be in error: Defensive ECM pods were just a modifier like chaff (during evaluating the battle result) and ActiveJammers were just basic modelled or didn't work at all. Don't know how it's fixed in H3. Another topic: I've seen, that all ATA missiles have a weapon radar assigned, even the semi-active ones. Wouldn't it be correct to enable the 'guidance' flag to simulate semic-active missiles or how does that stuff work in DW? During my tests to improve the FigherDoctrines I've seen, that even when the firing platform is killed its semic-active missiles hit targets.