LuftWolf and Amizaur's Weapons and Sensors Realism Mod

[LuftWolf]

The Sim treats attack against surface ships differently than submarines, missiles, or aircraft, in the sense that it automatically deploys more than one weapon against the target using the ATTACKBEST command, usually more than enough. I'll have to look into this farther, but I have encountered the hardcap even when using the FIREBEST command.

BTW, the changes in the new version of the CIWSAttack doctrine allow a single AB DDG to survive against two Oscars until the DDG ran out of missiles, in the middle of the fourth coordinated salvo of eight missiles.

I'd say that's a pretty good improvement.

Cheers,
David

PS When I post the torpedo test version, it the new ciwsattack doctrine will be included.

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

The Sim treats attack against surface ships differently than submarines, missiles, or aircraft, in the sense that it automatically deploys more than one weapon against the target using the ATTACKBEST command, usually more than enough. I'll have to look into this farther, but I have encountered the hardcap even when using the FIREBEST command.

BTW, the changes in the new version of the CIWSAttack doctrine allow a single AB DDG to survive against two Oscars until the DDG ran out of missiles, in the middle of the fourth coordinated salvo of eight missiles.

I'd say that's a pretty good improvement.

Cheers,
David

PS When I post the torpedo test version, it the new ciwsattack doctrine will be included.

Nice. Glad to see it's not letting missiles hit it because it was being too stingy about saving ammo.

[Deathblow]

I hate the fact that AttackBest and firebest logic has been hidden the way it has...

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

BTW, the changes in the new version of the CIWSAttack doctrine allow a single AB DDG to survive against two Oscars until the DDG ran out of missiles, in the middle of the fourth coordinated salvo of eight missiles.

... :|\ ... :hmm:

Wonder what people will think of this as representative of reality or not... I'm inclined to accept it as reasonable (obviously since I brought it up) only do to the fact that why would a Aegis ship even take a chance and hold back missile launches when lives are at stake. If the ship defenses fail because the missile salvos were restricted then there really wasn't a point to hold back the quantity of missiles in the first place right...there won't be a next time to use the ammo saved.

... sounds reasonable to me. Some might not like it, because ASCM are now even *less* effective against Aegis than they already were... which some may like and some may not... but the behavior sounds reasonable, so if any quams are made then perhaps future tweaks to AEGIS performance will be made to the weapon accuracy of the SM2 itself as the ship behavior will already be a reasonable representation...

... all of course IMHO

[Molon Labe]

Why be H about it?

The AEGIS is the counter-unit to the ASM. If it wasn't effective at doing its job, any the outcome of any mission involving missile shooters would be pre-determined.

[Deathblow]

On a completely unrelated note (as always)... here's more of Deathblows ever persistent, continuously annoying, yet completely unsolicited, interjections of opinion...

Some interesting quotes from the May issue of Seapower magazine regarding UUV development. http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/may06-14.php

Originally Posted by Seapower Magazine

The Navy doesn’t plan to produce the single-mission LMRS, but instead is leveraging the lessons learned from it and moving forward to acquire more advanced, reconfigurable, multimission UUVs. Navy Capt. Paul Ims, program manager for UUVs in the Program Executive Office for Littoral and Mine Warfare, said, “Our UUV programs are [now] focused on delivering more affordable, modular, autonomous systems with an open architecture.�

A contract to develop the first of these, called the 21-inch Mission-Reconfigurable UUV System (MRUUVS), is slated for award in mid-2007, and the UUV could become operational in 2013. An open architecture, or general blueprint, for computerized combat systems means they are standardized, transferable to other platforms and able to accommodate a variety of software applications.

Originally Posted by Seapower Magazine

The service’s November 2004 UUV Master Plan cites ISR as the Navy’s top UUV priority, followed by mine countermeasures, and then antisubmarine warfare as a longer-term priority

So its continuing to look like the ingame UUV capabilities aren't even close to those in RL... Heck, the statements in this article are suggesting that the USN probably doesn't even have UUVs currently fielded on subs with no plans to field them until 2013.

And even then the above statements proport that intelligence, survelance and recon are the first development goals, anti-mine the 2nd development goal, and *then* after than Anti-submarine warfare.

Originally Posted by Seapower Magazine

The Navy plans to operate some existing, less-sophisticated UUVs from its forthcoming Littoral Combat Ships, particularly to hunt for mines, using surface launch and recovery. These include the 10-foot Battlespace Preparation Autonomous Underwater Vehicle developed by the Office of Naval Research and Bluefin Robotics of Cambridge, Mass. The ships are being designed to counter shallow-water threats in coastal areas, such as mines, diesel submarines and fast surface craft

Why this super futuristic piece of technology is sitting in the 1980-1994 representation of ASW is still baffling to me.... I would not be opposed to limited to sensor ability of UUVs to make the good for anti-mine warfare and anti-mine warfare alone... might cause a ruckus though...

... then again whose to say the Russians don't have them... :hmm:

[Deathblow]

Not to shift discussion away from the AEGIS systemps of course...

[Deathblow]

Topic: MAD sensor.
Suggestion: Limited the minimum depth detectable to the MAD.

Its my understanding that deep depths mask the magnetic anomaly detected by MAD sesnors; that is to say, a deep submarines magnetic signiture will be shielded from the surface whenever it is deep enough, thereby hiding it from MADs above.

My suggestion? Lets put a shallow depth limit to the MAD to simulate this behavior. 600 or 800 ft should do it, so that a sub in the deep can hit 1000 ft in order to hide from the P3 overhead

[LuftWolf]

Originally Posted by Deathblow

Topic: MAD sensor.
Suggestion: Limited the minimum depth detectable to the MAD.

Its my understanding that deep depths mask the magnetic anomaly detected by MAD sesnors; that is to say, a deep submarines magnetic signiture will be shielded from the surface whenever it is deep enough, thereby hiding it from MADs above.

My suggestion? Lets put a shallow depth limit to the MAD to simulate this behavior. 600 or 800 ft should do it, so that a sub in the deep can hit 1000 ft in order to hide from the P3 overhead

This was done some time ago, like six or seven months.

[Deathblow]

So it has, assuming the DB values are in feet (I hate the way the DB switches between metric and nonmetric values randomly).

Here's also something that's interesting... http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...craft/asw3.htm

Originally Posted by GlobalSecurity.org

In order to detect an anomaly, the MAD head of the aircraft tries to align itself with the noise produced by the Earth's magnetic field. Through this alignment, the noise appears as a near-constant background noise value which enables the operator to recognize any contrasting submarine magnetic anomalies from the background noise. However, any rapid changes in aircraft direction or the operation of certain electronic equipment and electric motors can produce so much aircraft electro-magnetic noise that makes the detection of the submarine's magnetic signature virtually impossible

Meaning the direction of the detecting aircraft affects the accuracy of the MAD sensor... wonder how true this really is... if so it would be hard to model because making the sensor cognisant of its direction as well as making the AI respond appropriately would be a real pain. Perhaps making the sensor "target aspect" sensitive would be enough of a compromise.

... can you tell I hate ASW aircraft?

[Amizaur]

Originally Posted by Deathblow

So it has, assuming the DB values are in feet (I hate the way the DB switches between metric and nonmetric values randomly).

Yes, distances are in meters, altitudes in feets, I hate this too !

[LuftWolf]

And database and NSE altitudes in meters...

[kage]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

This was done some time ago, like six or seven months.

... to the MH-60.

Last I checked, at least, the depth capability of the Orion MAD was still untouched from stock.release;

[LuftWolf]

Originally Posted by kage

... to the MH-60.

Last I checked, at least, the depth capability of the Orion MAD was still untouched from stock.release;

Oh, det. and op. (sensor) altitudes are in feet.

So now you know what my hobby-life is like.

The P-3 Mad is set not to detect contacts under 1000ft in LWAMI.

[Sea Demon]

Very interesting reading here, guys. I have one minor question regarding LWAMI. Which files within LWAMI are the ones responsible for making the AI 'meaner'? Database or Doctrine files?

[LuftWolf]

The way DW works, the Database and Doctrine files are integrally related. They go together as a "set".

So it is really both files working together that makes the game what it is.