Index of Stickied topics + RA Mod Discussion here

[Castout]

So you're saying just increase the overall torpedo damage strength?


That's certainly the easiest way.

But would still make damage under 100% ridiculous.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Castout

So you're saying just increase the overall torpedo damage strength?


That's certainly the easiest way.

But would still make damage under 100% ridiculous.

Castout what you're failing to understand, is that DW is not only about subs.
People play air units and surface units. People design cooperative multiplayer missions where assests other than subs come onto the scene. Even with all the great advances in programmability of the frigate's/udaloy's helicopters; with the damage LWT torpedos make choosing a unit other than sub doesn't make any sense. You won't be able to carry ASW operations and you won't be able to defend yourself against those threats.
This is a serious gameplay/balance problem and I hope the RA modders will address it.

[oscar19681]

where can i download the update for this mod? I have the previous one.

[pjb1]

Originally Posted by oscar19681

where can i download the update for this mod? I have the previous one.

http://seashadows.org/index.php?seashadows=download

[Castout]

Originally Posted by goldorak

Castout what you're failing to understand, is that DW is not only about subs.
People play air units and surface units. People design cooperative multiplayer missions where assests other than subs come onto the scene. Even with all the great advances in programmability of the frigate's/udaloy's helicopters; with the damage LWT torpedos make choosing a unit other than sub doesn't make any sense. You won't be able to carry ASW operations and you won't be able to defend yourself against those threats.
This is a serious gameplay/balance problem and I hope the RA modders will address it.

No I understand you but just that I would like to see a better implementation of damage effect if possible rather than solely increasing the damage strength. perhaps a combination of both is the best.

[suBB]

Originally Posted by Castout

No I understand you but just that I would like to see a better implementation of damage effect if possible rather than solely increasing the damage strength. perhaps a combination of both is the best.

They are looking into it and the situation is in very good and capable hands.

[dd149]

Regarding this issue, which has really raised hell on the forums, one question from a non specialist: I agree that LWT low damage model makes air assets quite useless, and therefore affects playability of scenarios with air assets a lot, but what is the experience in real world? As not so many nukes or modern submarines were sent to the bottom by torps (fortunately i would add!) nobody really knows the real thing and those who know are not allowed to talk. Is it so strange that these lightweight torps are not very effective against 3000 to 6000 t displacement vessels? I understand that many navies have developed heavyweight torps for exactly that reason, and increased range too obviously.

Anyway, the response from RA development team up to now has been outstanding and I again want to thank them a lot for their efforts. Even with some pending issues the mod is a very good and interesting one, lets hope to get good scenarions quickly.

[Sea Demon]

1. I think the American surface ship missile defenses are way too weak and completely innacurate. 14 Sandbox missiles coming our way, and the AB and Tico fire 1 SM-2 at a time at single missile targets. That's not accurate at all. In fact, me (OHP-SM-1), a Ticonderoga Cruiser, and an Arleigh Burke protecting a Wasp Class Amphib. group, and I was doing the heavy lifting in AAW. That's just not correct. The Tico and AB should be firing at least one per target (maybe two) in salvo's. It should be able to easily handle saturation level missile attacks from significant distances.

(Russian surface units in the mod seem to layer their defenses better)

2. I would love to see a comparison noise level chart for the submarines if anybody has it. Not sure if noise levels are accurate.

- There should be different levels of quieting between all three versions of LA class boats. They appear to be the same.
- Akula 2 should be quieter than 688(I) at lower speeds. Akula-I improved should be just a tad noisier.
- Seawolf and Virginia should be quieter than they are portrayed.
- And diesel electric subs should emit more noise as they increase speed (doesn't seem to be the case??)(Flank speed at less than 1,000 yards---I should see something on my sonar)
- Alfa doesn't accelerate as fast as I thought it should. Shouldn't it reach flank speed quicker than it does? I thought it had the power output to achieve a quick acceleration from low speeds.
- Did anybody resolve the issue with the Alfa diving depth? Shouldn't it be able to dive significantly deeper than 600 meters?

[Castout]

Originally Posted by suBB

They are looking into it and the situation is in very good and capable hands.

Really? That's great

[suBB]

Hey,

I've been testing SSP types in RA and something is weird going on with Surface Duct. All the rest seem ok.

someone please run this simple test, report back and compare results..

AFAIK, from previous tests, seastate, weather and time of day have no effect on detection ranges, these factors are not included in my data so please do not consider these factors for comparison.

regarding a surface duct, detection ranges should increase above the layer and decrease below the layer..

well, based on the data I have, its opposite. detection ranges increase below the layer while detection range decreases above the layer..

for test purposes, SW vs transiting akula2 @ 14 kts / two separate tests of both platforms above and below the layer

my results:

TA NB contact at 8.5nm above the layer and 14.3nm below the layer respectively..

please run this simple test and confirm..

*deep water
*place your akula on a perpendicular to the SW
*ak2 @ 14kts, 20nm away, SW @ 5 kts(avoid TA drag)
*monitor SW TA NB for initial contact, and time compression of course
*both platforms 600 ft (above layer test) & 1600 ft (below layer test)
*when scenario is loaded, check SSP and ensure side of layer for test

please tell me what you find so I can better understand what is going on..

thanks

[pjb1]

Originally Posted by suBB

Hey,

I've been testing SSP types in RA and something is weird going on with Surface Duct. All the rest seem ok.

someone please run this simple test, report back and compare results..

AFAIK, from previous tests, seastate, weather and time of day have no effect on detection ranges, these factors are not included in my data so please do not consider these factors for comparison.

regarding a surface duct, detection ranges should increase above the layer and decrease below the layer..

well, based on the data I have, its opposite. detection ranges increase below the layer while detection range decreases above the layer..

for test purposes, SW vs transiting akula2 @ 14 kts / two separate tests of both platforms above and below the layer

my results:

TA NB contact at 8.5nm above the layer and 14.3nm below the layer respectively..

please run this simple test and confirm..

*deep water
*place your akula on a perpendicular to the SW
*ak2 @ 14kts, 20nm away, SW @ 5 kts(avoid TA drag)
*monitor SW TA NB for initial contact, and time compression of course
*both platforms 600 ft (above layer test) & 1600 ft (below layer test)
*when scenario is loaded, check SSP and ensure side of layer for test

please tell me what you find so I can better understand what is going on..

thanks

Postive or negative gradiant? I ask because that does make a difference a big one. Sounds like you had a postive grad there. remember sound is lazy so if the ssp is slower above layer detection range will be farther.

[suBB]

Originally Posted by pjb1

Postive or negative gradiant? I ask because that does make a difference a big one. Sounds like you had a postive grad there. remember sound is lazy so if the ssp is slower above layer detection range will be farther.

as far as I know, DW doesn't model SSP in that fashion. I wish it did so we can make more use of it. that said, the gradient won't matter. It only models the layer depth and changes in detection ranges relative of the two platforms.

So, in this test, if both platforms are above the layer in a positive gradient, then yes I should achieve detection father out, than closer in(inside a negative gradient = below layer). What I'm seeing is reduced detection ranges in a positive gradient & increased detection ranges in a negative gradient. That is what appears to be the problem here and wanted to see if someone else can repeat it based on the parameters I've used..

also I'm not really sure exactly what the SSP is for the transiting platform(AI) another test I can run is MP and obtain data that way, but that would take longer..

[pjb1]

Originally Posted by suBB

as far as I know, DW doesn't model SSP in that fashion. I wish it did so we can make more use of it. that said, the gradient won't matter. It only models the layer depth and changes in detection ranges relative of the two platforms.

So, in this test, if both platforms are above the layer in a positive gradient, then yes I should achieve detection father out, than closer in(inside a negative gradient = below layer). What I'm seeing is reduced detection ranges in a positive gradient & increased detection ranges in a negative gradient. That is what appears to be the problem here and wanted to see if someone else can repeat it based on the parameters I've used..

also I'm not really sure exactly what the SSP is for the transiting platform(AI) another test I can run is MP and obtain data that way, but that would take longer..

everything i have read about DW says it does model SSP to work like it does in real life.

[suBB]

Originally Posted by pjb1

everything i have read about DW says it does model SSP to work like it does in real life.

1.. regardless.. there is still what appears to be a problem here and need someone beside me(another person) to see if its repeatable or not.. in a surface duct you should not have decreased detection range above the layer(and vice versa) in fact, if you took a brief moment to run this simple test with the same parameters, we would have a better understanding of what is happening.

2.. I don't think you'll get a SSP delta on same side of a layer to yield a difference in detection range of 5.8nm..

3.. we won't get very far with this w/o repeatability. Either it's something I'm doing on my end, or surface duct doesn't work with RA mod.

[pjb1]

I am testing i am using the same parameters and i can get contact at approx 15NM above the layer. Below didnt get contact until approx 11NM. i replayed the same scenario many times and the detection ranges were not constant. They changed slightly depending on how sharp the SSP changed but the difference in ranges was not that much + - 1NM. I did try to use use different depths too. Above i used between 200 and 600 ft. no real difference. Below used between 1200 and 2000 ft. range increased slighty at 2000 ft maybe 1/2 NM was hard to tell but was slightly farther. I even turned off RA and tried LWAMI and got roughly the same results.