Are you a good sub captain

[LoBlo]

I read an interesting stat from a book excerpt, Submarine Technology for the 21st Century by Stan Zimmerman,

In World War II, 25% of the U.S. captains sank 75% of the ships. For the Germans, 2.5% of the captains sank 25% of the total," said the director of the British navy's submarine museum in Gosport. "The best captains came back." ...
... There are important lessons to be learned from these bare facts. Ace submarine skippers contribute far out of proportion to their numbers...

Are you a good sub captain or do you belong in port at a desk job? Be truthful now...I have to admit though I end up on the sea bottom most of the time... and its always those darn pesky helos that do it too!

[Sonoboy]

I think I'm a pretty good skipper, but I'm a bit reckless at times.

Let's just say that I do a lot of questionable actions. :hmm:

[Schultzy]

I'm awful. I don't know my ASW from my elbow. :( I'm trying but i'm still dying. :)

[jason taylor]

Never mind Manouevres, always go straight at 'em!" - Jack Aubrey.

A tactical theory based on the assumption that Englishmen can always fire twice as fast as Frenchmen.

[SeaQueen]

Are you a good sub captain or do you belong in port at a desk job? Be truthful now...I have to admit though I end up on the sea bottom most of the time... and its always those darn pesky helos that do it too!

I doubt that historical success rates for submarine captains are accurate predictors of future success rates. Submarines, their weaponry, and sonars were so crude then.

Helos are definitely my biggest problem as well.

[Blacklight]

Bernard is on my boat. 'nuff said.

[LoBlo]

Helos are definitely my biggest problem as well.

And usually in the form of escaping launch datums I would guess, if your problem is similar to mine. A slowing moving platform against fast moving hunters...:cry:

....I just finished modding a version of the sublaunched AIM-9X (from the TASM and SS27ASW) into the game. We'll see whether or not it increases my survival stats against those helos.

I doubt that historical success rates for submarine captains are accurate predictors of future success rates. Submarines, their weaponry, and sonars were so crude then.

Still, its a poignant reminder that not all captains are created equally... and the top notch of a lot can produce starkingly different results than their less competant peers.

[Kapitan]

I wouldnt say im a good skipper infact even though i voted yes im more at home commanding boomers than attacks, i excell in navigation, my worst points are acctualy tactical awareness and understanding what the other guy is doing or going to do.

There fore im more at home on boomers but all the time untill now i find myself commanding attack boats, even though im pretty good im in no way top of the class infact theres so many people above me.

[Dr.Sid]

What does it mean 'to excel in navigation' ? You need very little navigation skills in DW scenarios.

[SeaQueen]

And usually in the form of escaping launch datums I would guess, if your problem is similar to mine. A slowing moving platform against fast moving hunters...:cry:

Part of the problem is solved by moving faster as soon as you launch an ASCM. Once you shoot a cruise missile, they know EXACTLY where you are, so you need to really step out to get away from that point.

The helos actually don't search that smartly. They set up a box around the datum and the area doesn't expand so if you can basically just get a little bit outside of the box, you're home free. As long as you're not overflown, in which case he gets a MAD hit, you should be okay.

I also think it's odd how people use cruise missiles from insanely close distances. Why the heck do people shoot missiles that have a range of tens if not hundreds of miles, at single digit ranges? It makes no sense. Standing off and shooting decreases your vulnerability to counter attack from ASW aircraft by giving you plenty of time to clear the datum. In order to make the weapons effective you shoot lots of them in a salvo. Yeah, sometimes they get shot down... but not all the time and it usually only takes 1 or 2 to put a ship out of action. That's good enough for me.

Still, its a poignant reminder that not all captains are created equally... and the top notch of a lot can produce starkingly different results than their less competant peers.

I suspect a lot of it is luck too. So much of the outcome of submarine attacks has to do with one's ability to get into a good position to shoot. That's stuff you can't always control.

[SeaQueen]

What does it mean 'to excel in navigation' ? You need very little navigation skills in DW scenarios.

I wouldn't say that. It doesn't hurt to have some basic mo'board skills in DW. It's not really necessary, but I'd argue it lets you drive a little smarter, although it makes you a lot more busy.

[sonar732]

I wouldnt say im a good skipper infact even though i voted yes im more at home commanding boomers than attacks, i excell in navigation, my worst points are acctualy tactical awareness and understanding what the other guy is doing or going to do.

There fore im more at home on boomers but all the time untill now i find myself commanding attack boats, even though im pretty good im in no way top of the class infact theres so many people above me.

What mod are you playing with which enables you to play with boomers...or are you talking SCU?

[Kapitan]

Yeah SCU for the boomers trying to make that playable ohio to work now id like to give that one a spin!

And navigational skill come in very handy in MP games knowing where you are and about the area your in gives you a big advantage where as the guy who dont know the area will probably ground or something.

[Molon Labe]

I also think it's odd how people use cruise missiles from insanely close distances. Why the heck do people shoot missiles that have a range of tens if not hundreds of miles, at single digit ranges? To cause more fire damage from all the onboard jet fuel. Kidding.

It's because of the balance of effectiveness between SSMs and SAMs in DW. The only effective SSM carried by player controlled platforms in DW is the Klub. Any other missile type is going to be shot down unless it is fired in such large numbers that it can overwhelm the defenses of the target formation. Even a full salvo of 12 TASMs is unlikely to sink even one ship in a Russian SAG if fired at long range. From close range, you 've got a realistic chance at killing one and a shot at damaging or sinking a second, or maybe even a shot at a HVT.

It makes no sense. Standing off and shooting decreases your vulnerability to counter attack from ASW aircraft by giving you plenty of time to clear the datum. In order to make the weapons effective you shoot lots of them in a salvo. Yeah, sometimes they get shot down... but not all the time and it usually only takes 1 or 2 to put a ship out of action. That's good enough for me.
I disagree that a chance at sinking a screening vessel is worth depleting stores (or more accurately, worth sacrificing limited stores space that could be used for more effective weapons) or revealing the sub's location. Sure, you'll probably get away in time, but so will the enemy formation. As it stands now, an SSN can get within lethal ADCAP/UGST/65-76 range of the HVT in most formations--including well-screened formations. (Although, it should be noted here that Lw/Ami 4 decreases the effective range of these weapons significantly, and will likely have the effect of making well-defended HVT's much harder to reach. :|\\) Firing at long range eliminates your best chance at an effective attack.

Now, if subsonic, seaskimming missiles performed in DW the way they did in the Falklands, Persian Gulf, and off the coast of Lebanon just a few months ago, then you'd be absolutely right. But as it stands now, the ability of escort vessels (or hell, even capital ships with only point defenses like LSD's and CVN's) to detect, identify, and engage SSMs in DW renders the subsonic SSM all but useless unless they are fired from inside the escorts' engagement envelope.

The Klub, of course, can be a whole different story. It actually loses effectiveness (against a player-controlled FFG) if it is fired close enough that it can be detected in the boost phase. Even so, when up against a Burke or Tico, firing from close range is often the only way for the missiles to get through (LW/Ami mod applied of course, since those vessels are ineffective as a counter-unit in stock DW).

[Kapitan]

If your close enough to fire missiles that wont get shot down (20nm) why dont you just fire two torps into a target? it takes longer to get there but gives you a chance to get out before a helo comes and sits on you.

depending on what sort of target im firing against i will use a veriaty of ranges and weapons, for a nimitz stand alone i would get close and fire two klubs and two torpedos, the missiles will be there to distract the enamy.

If im engauging a CVBG i will sit deep and let the forward escorts go over me then attack and slip away because i know that any helo or weapon fired into the middle of the CVBG will be easier to evade because theres so much noise the enamy cant get a true fix on me.
And if they do fire a torp all i have to do is go under a ship and blow then dive again most likely the enamys torp will hit thier own ship.

[Molon Labe]

If your close enough to fire missiles that wont get shot down (20nm) why dont you just fire two torps into a target? it takes longer to get there but gives you a chance to get out before a helo comes and sits on you.


Agreed. I only think the missiles are worth firing if you've been detected and have nothing to lose, or if you really, really, need a certain ship dead NOW. As a general rule, torps are effective, and subsonic SSMs are not.

[Enigma]

So, this poll all but confirms that %52 of us are complete liars. :lol: ;)

[SeaQueen]

Even a full salvo of 12 TASMs is unlikely to sink even one ship in a Russian SAG if fired at long range.

That hasn't been my experience. Plus, a full salvo of TASMS isn't 12 missiles, it's 16 missiles. Lemme tell ya, those 4 in the torpedo tubes sometimes make all the difference. If you figure individually, a TASM has only as say a 0.10 Phit, then those four missiles mean the difference between having only a 0.72 probability of scoring at least one hit, and having a 0.81 probability of scoring at least one hit. The one is sorta sketchy performance, the other is actually pretty good, all things considered. My suspicion is, though, that due to factors like the lack of available director radars and what not which limit the number of targets that can be engaged simultaneously, the performance is actually considerably higher the bigger your salvo size is.

I disagree that a chance at sinking a screening vessel is worth depleting stores (or more accurately, worth sacrificing limited stores space that could be used for more effective weapons) or revealing the sub's location.

That's the thing, if you shoot them from far enough away then they don't reveal the sub's location because you have enough time to be someplace completely different by the time a searcher gets to them. Additionally, if you shoot them from beyond the target's radar horizon, then he doesn't even know WHERE you are at all. He only knows your direction.

Even if, say the target did detect the launch. If you figure you shot your TASMS at 200Nmi using over the horizon firing data, then by the time a helo gets to where you are, you're about an hour's drive away. At 15kts, that's 707 Nmi^2 that the searcher would have to look through in order to find you. If you figure a helo has a search width of about 2Nmi then at 200kts, it'd take him an hour and a half to stand a 50% chance to find you, just if you stood still! Of course, I wouldn't stay still. I'd be doing my best to make that 707 Nmi^2 even BIGGER.


Sure, you'll probably get away in time, but so will the enemy formation.


I haven't experienced that. What usually happens with me, is that I end up taking out one of the escorts with TASMs, close occaisionally get an escort with Harpoons, and then finish of the HVUs with torpedoes. To do it, you need to make full use of the over the horizon data, though.


As it stands now, an SSN can get within lethal ADCAP/UGST/65-76 range of the HVT in most formations--including well-screened formations.

That's true.


Now, if subsonic, seaskimming missiles performed in DW the way they did in the Falklands, Persian Gulf, and off the coast of Lebanon just a few months ago, then you'd be absolutely right.

The corvette off Lebanon had his CIWS turned off. :-)

If you look at the statistics (this is off the top of my head), ASCMs have a single shot Phit on average of about 0.60 against undefended targets (tankers and merchant vessels) and about 0.25 against defended vessels. It's really surprising how many of them miss. Of those which were hit, most of the warships were not sunk. The merchant vessels typically were sunk unless they had effective damage control to prevent fires from spreading. There was a guy who wrote this giant book about the Tanker Wars in the gulf, compiling as many numbers as he could about cruise missile attacks and the results were really interesting. Individually, they're really not that effective against warships, their real power is in firing salvos of 2 or preferably many more. Cruise missiles are best thought of as robotic kamakazee planes. They are supposed to dive en masse into enemy air defenses, with the full knowledge that most of them will be shot down before they even got close, but that one or two that gets through is potentially devastating.

The corvette off Lebanon probably would have survived an attack of only 2 ASCMs fired in salvo had he had his CIWS turned on.

Most ASCMs are really not that great singly. I'd want to shoot at least 2 and preferably more if possible. That makes sense if you think about it. They probably don't have the best radars in the world on them. They don't have a lot of room on them for fancy computers, and all of that costs money. You don't want to put the most sophisticated electronics in the world in something that is supposed to explode. That means they're vulnerable to countermeasures. They spend a lot of time in a box at sea, so they get a lot of wear and tear. They tend to be designed for use in idealized environments, but used in less than ideal environments, that almost certainly has it's effect.


But as it stands now, the ability of escort vessels (or hell, even capital ships with only point defenses like LSD's and CVN's) to detect, identify, and engage SSMs in DW renders the subsonic SSM all but useless unless they are fired from inside the escorts' engagement envelope.


That hasn't been my experience. My sense of things is that the typical player shoots them one at a time, or maybe only a few at at time. They're too worried about conserving missiles. If you follow the logic of Fleet Tactics, though, the proper thing to do is always shoot your maximum salvo size (16 missiles, not 12) into the opposing formation. I mean... geez... if I was commanding an SSN and I got a message that a Russian amphibious force was entering the Barents Sea, bound for Iceland, and it was located at XX-XX N, YY-YY E at TTTTZ hours, heading 000T at VVkts. I wouldn't be chinsy about missiles. I'd shoot everything I had at them at soon as I could. The whole battle isn't won at 200Nmi but just by taking the shot you've already siezed a tremendous advantage. I'd be happy just to take out one of the escorts in the opening salvo because I'd have another salvo of Harpoons ready when I got in range, and then finally I'd have my torpedoes to attack a force that's already been attrited. Any ship I take out makes the next salvo's chances a little bit better.

ASCM attacks, fought in the manner are time consuming affairs because you spend a lot of time making guestimates of where the target is, based on a recent but old piece of intelligence, firing into the AOU produced by that intelligence, hoping for the best then closing, making another guestimate when you get in range, then finally finding out what you have left HOURS later. Sometimes I think players don't game it this way, though, because it is so time consuming.

[LoBlo]

Played two missions today, the same mission twice... and died on both of them without even reaching my objective... man I stink. :( :cry:. The first time was from another pesky ASW helo, the second by a 688i's (mark48) that I never even got a wiff of despite going slowly at 5 knots....:dead:

If a cat needs 9 lives... I need about 143 lives... and still some.

I also think it's odd how people use cruise missiles from insanely close distances. Why the heck do people shoot missiles that have a range of tens if not hundreds of miles, at single digit ranges? It makes no sense. Standing off and shooting decreases your vulnerability to counter attack from ASW aircraft by giving you plenty of time to clear the datum. In order to make the weapons effective you shoot lots of them in a salvo. Yeah, sometimes they get shot down... but not all the time and it usually only takes 1 or 2 to put a ship out of action. That's good enough for me.

Actually I stopped using ASCMs for reasons already mentioned. Its usually the datum of a torpedo strike that gets me and from helo's already in the air for ASW screen ( though I don't know how realistic it is to have omnipresent ASW helos everywhere all the time... still makes the missions more challenging... more realistic? Who knows...). no matter how slow, deep, or far I launch torps they are almost always detected instantly (I guess they are pretty noisey) and a helo is bearing down the datum within 3mins of launch... :(

So, this poll all but confirms that %52 of us are complete liars.

Agreed.... I should have mentioned that playing with truth on doesn't count;)

[Molon Labe]

That hasn't been my experience. Plus, a full salvo of TASMS isn't 12 missiles, it's 16 missiles. Lemme tell ya, those 4 in the torpedo tubes sometimes make all the difference. If you figure individually, a TASM has only as say a 0.10 Phit, then those four missiles mean the difference between having only a 0.72 probability of scoring at least one hit, and having a 0.81 probability of scoring at least one hit. The one is sorta sketchy performance, the other is actually pretty good, all things considered. My suspicion is, though, that due to factors like the lack of available director radars and what not which limit the number of targets that can be engaged simultaneously, the performance is actually considerably higher the bigger your salvo size is.
Okay, so we'll assume that the skipper in these scenarios carried TASMs or 'poons in stores and has the luxury of not needing the tubes for ADCAPs and UUVs. Yes, the extra 4 missiles does make a difference. Of course, for the Seawolf, a "full" salvo is only 8 missiles, which also makes a difference.

I just ran two tests, and got the results I expected. A single escort (Udaloy) was able to shoot down 10 missiles on its own in the first test. A single escort (Sovremmenyy) got 8 or 9 on its own on the second test, while 1-2 were shot down by a supporting warship which engaged after the Sov had fired 3 volleys already (for again, a total of 10 shootdowns). Both formations were loose ASW-optimized formations; for a tight AAW-optimized formation, the role of mutual support will be much more salient. In both tests, all missiles left over after the first ship was sunk that did not impact the hull were shot down by the next possible target (some were also spoofed by chaff).

I'm comfortable saying that a Seawolf would be lucky to get anyone, while a 688I will reliably get one escort provided that the formation provides little to no mutual AAW support and the 688I uses the torp tubes along with the VLS. If those conditions aren't true, it might not even get the one. Splitting the missiles between two targets would result in all of the missiles being shot down in nearly all cases, even with the factors above being in the SSN's favor.



I disagree that a chance at sinking a screening vessel is worth depleting stores (or more accurately, worth sacrificing limited stores space that could be used for more effective weapons) or revealing the sub's location.
That's the thing, if you shoot them from far enough away then they don't reveal the sub's location because you have enough time to be someplace completely different by the time a searcher gets to them. Additionally, if you shoot them from beyond the target's radar horizon, then he doesn't even know WHERE you are at all. He only knows your direction.

Even if, say the target did detect the launch. If you figure you shot your TASMS at 200Nmi using over the horizon firing data, then by the time a helo gets to where you are, you're about an hour's drive away. At 15kts, that's 707 Nmi^2 that the searcher would have to look through in order to find you. If you figure a helo has a search width of about 2Nmi then at 200kts, it'd take him an hour and a half to stand a 50% chance to find you, just if you stood still! Of course, I wouldn't stay still. I'd be doing my best to make that 707 Nmi^2 even BIGGER.
Okay, I shouldn't have said "location," but "presence." The formation can now alter course to avoid you, to prevent a more effective torpedo attack. Also, this is probably the best point to throw in that we seem to be looking at slightly different situations. The scenario I envision is not one in which you have over the horizon targeting data, but a long-range TA solution. Thus, there is a strong possibility that the missile lauch will be detected by ASW escorts or aircraft (especially with the launch transient noise modeled in LW/Ami). In fact, in one of my tests, I was 6nm off the nose of a Su-33 at the time of launch--fortunately, the DW visual "sensor" doesn't have realistic performance in that regard.

Yeah, if this is OTH, you're getting away unless you were unlucky enough to have an SSN or MPA on your doorstep without knowing it, (and more on this later...)


Sure, you'll probably get away in time, but so will the enemy formation.

I haven't experienced that. What usually happens with me, is that I end up taking out one of the escorts with TASMs, close occaisionally get an escort with Harpoons, and then finish of the HVUs with torpedoes. To do it, you need to make full use of the over the horizon data, though.
You're mostly right here. I'm making the error of imputing realistic AI performance. The only way that my argument here plays out is in the rare case of a player-led formation, which we aren't likely to see opposing a US sub frequently unless we get an OPFOR expansion pack. (Russian SSNs vs. US formations are outside this discussion because the Klub is quite effective.)



Now, if subsonic, seaskimming missiles performed in DW the way they did in the Falklands, Persian Gulf, and off the coast of Lebanon just a few months ago, then you'd be absolutely right.
The corvette off Lebanon had his CIWS turned off. :-)
So did the Stark. And both the Stark and Sheffield detected the incoming with lookouts instead of radar. The reason why the tin cans have been sucking is because of a failure to detect, identify, and engage the incoming missiles. This difficulty is not factored into DW.


If you look at the statistics (this is off the top of my head), ASCMs have a single shot Phit on average of about 0.60 against undefended targets (tankers and merchant vessels) and about 0.25 against defended vessels. It's really surprising how many of them miss....
If malfunctions were modled, then it would be even more important to prevent the missiles from being shot down. This strengthens my argument...

Cruise missiles are best thought of as robotic kamakazee planes. They are supposed to dive en masse into enemy air defenses, with the full knowledge that most of them will be shot down before they even got close, but that one or two that gets through is potentially devastating....Most ASCMs are really not that great singly. I'd want to shoot at least 2 and preferably more if possible. That makes sense if you think about it. They probably don't have the best radars in the world on them. They don't have a lot of room on them for fancy computers, and all of that costs money. You don't want to put the most sophisticated electronics in the world in something that is supposed to explode. That means they're vulnerable to countermeasures. They spend a lot of time in a box at sea, so they get a lot of wear and tear. They tend to be designed for use in idealized environments, but used in less than ideal environments, that almost certainly has it's effect.
In DW, more so than in real life, saturation is essential because the ships' defenses are so capable. I don't see how this bears on the issue of range of engagement, though.


But as it stands now, the ability of escort vessels (or hell, even capital ships with only point defenses like LSD's and CVN's) to detect, identify, and engage SSMs in DW renders the subsonic SSM all but useless unless they are fired from inside the escorts' engagement envelope.

That hasn't been my experience. My sense of things is that the typical player shoots them one at a time, or maybe only a few at at time. They're too worried about conserving missiles.
I thought you stayed away from MP?
Sorry, but the only players who hold back and only fire a few at a time are Kilo or Akula drivers that want to give the guy in the FFG a break. (Or, they're shooting at targets with no missile defenses.) There is no need for such chivalry if you're shooting Harpoons or TASMs. Plus, players have no reason to be concerned with conserving stores since the sub's "deployment" ends at the end of the mission. Even in the so-called "campaign" mode, loadouts can be refreshed between missions regardless of whether the sub had a chance to return to port.


If you follow the logic of Fleet Tactics, though, the proper thing to do is always shoot your maximum salvo size (16 missiles, not 12) into the opposing formation. I mean... geez... if I was commanding an SSN and I got a message that a Russian amphibious force was entering the Barents Sea, bound for Iceland, and it was located at XX-XX N, YY-YY E at TTTTZ hours, heading 000T at VVkts. I wouldn't be chinsy about missiles. I'd shoot everything I had at them at soon as I could. The whole battle isn't won at 200Nmi but just by taking the shot you've already siezed a tremendous advantage. I'd be happy just to take out one of the escorts in the opening salvo because I'd have another salvo of Harpoons ready when I got in range, and then finally I'd have my torpedoes to attack a force that's already been attrited. Any ship I take out makes the next salvo's chances a little bit better.
An OTH shot makes sense, especially from that kind of range. You'll get one escort "for free." However, that range scale takes this completely out of the scope of MP, and out of the scope of most SP scenarios, so criticism of players for not doing this is of limited applicability.

And you're not taking out an escort with a 4-Harpoon salvo at long range. Even the ASW-oriented Udaloy will get around 10. Even if you're lucky enough to get a single hit, you're only going to score around 33-50% damage. (Just tested---37% on a Udaloy, which I'll add was the end result of an 8-missile salvo fired from 10 miles and enabled 5 miles out! Aside: Just for the heck of it, I redid the same test from 6.5nm, scoring 3 hits for a kill.)

ASCM attacks, fought in the manner are time consuming affairs because you spend a lot of time making guestimates of where the target is, based on a recent but old piece of intelligence, firing into the AOU produced by that intelligence, hoping for the best then closing, making another guestimate when you get in range, then finally finding out what you have left HOURS later. Sometimes I think players don't game it this way, though, because it is so time consuming.
Scenario designers don't build 200nm engagements because it's too time consuming for the player. In your more typical scenario without OTH targeting, it makes more sense to close from 30-40nm to <10nm to use your missiles (assuming you use them at all) than to fire immediately.

[/dream mode on]Now, if we had a dynamic campaign engine that could place these engagements in the scope of a broader conflict, with the ability to jump into any controllable platform within the conflict and MP capacity, then I would love jump into an SSN that had just been referred to an SAG or CSG, fire the missiles, set course to clear datum and intercept, go do something else (jump to another platform, else go to a time lapse faster than 8x), come back to the SSN if it was intercepted en route, and then play the interesting part that involves actually penetrating the ASW screen (in which human opponents are controlling the escorts and helos) and doing some REAL damage. But that's a lot of trouble to go through to get to the fun part if I don't have, at least, a more concrete reason to do it. (For example, preventing the target formation from accomplishing its mission in the conflict and tilting the order of battle to my side). [/dream mode off]

[SeaQueen]

Okay, so we'll assume that the skipper in these scenarios carried TASMs or 'poons in stores and has the luxury of not needing the tubes for ADCAPs and UUVs.

Unless the mission requires it specifically, I'd ALWAYS rather have weapons than UUVs.


Yes, the extra 4 missiles does make a difference. Of course, for the Seawolf, a "full" salvo is only 8 missiles, which also makes a difference.

But the Seawolf was optimized for ASW. The LA, in this sense, is more versatile. VLS tubes really add a lot of bang to a cruise missile firing warship. It also applies to land attack cruise missiles too, because increased salvo sizes increases the likelyhood of a missile penetrating the defenses surrounding targets on land as well.
With cruise missiles, more is always better.


I'm comfortable saying that a Seawolf would be lucky to get anyone, while a 688I will reliably get one escort provided that the formation provides little to no mutual AAW support and the 688I uses the torp tubes along with the VLS. If those conditions aren't true, it might not even get the one. Splitting the missiles between two targets would result in all of the missiles being shot down in nearly all cases, even with the factors above being in the SSN's favor.


That's true. When I use TASMs, though, I usually can't really pick out a single target. At 200Nmi, I get the formation center and an AOU from a message. I use the data to generate a manual solution for a "formation center" some time in the future and fire at that. From that I let the missile's seeker do it's work. It usually finds something and I strike from a position of relative invulnerability.

Now... with a salvo size of even 12 missiles, imagine a coordinated attack with two SSNs w/VLS tubes now there's a total of 24-32 missiles inbound from over the horizon. It's difficult to organize, but if they're both getting the same targeting information then they'll both most likely shoot at the same or similar times. Very large, and fairly effective attacks can be made.

It's actually a fun idea for a series of multi-player scenarios, now that I think about it. I could have 2 cruise missile shooters at 200NMi, 1 cruise missile shooter and 1 torpedo shooter, 2 cruise missile shooters and 1 torpedo shooter, etc.


Okay, I shouldn't have said "location," but "presence." The formation can now alter course to avoid you, to prevent a more effective torpedo attack.

Presense is sort of a weird thing. The Soviets were well aware of the presense of US SSNs at their doorstep. Just as we were aware of Soviet SSNs at ours. Anyone who remembers the old photos of VICTOR III's surfacing off the coast of North Carolina has proof of that. I don't think it really matters if they're aware you're out there, if you're always out there anyhow.

I'm not really worried about them changing course in an SSN, though. The nice thing about an SSN is that it can maintain a lot of speed for a long time, unlike an SS. So it's not necessarily unreasonable to continue to press on even after making a maximum range attack. The ability to sustain high speeds for long periods of time implies that SSNs are not are not constrained by limiting lines of approach in the same way that an SS is.


Also, this is probably the best point to throw in that we seem to be looking at slightly different situations. The scenario I envision is not one in which you have over the horizon targeting data, but a long-range TA solution. Thus, there is a strong possibility that the missile lauch will be detected by ASW escorts or aircraft (especially with the launch transient noise modeled in LW/Ami). In fact, in one of my tests, I was 6nm off the nose of a Su-33 at the time of launch--fortunately, the DW visual "sensor" doesn't have realistic performance in that regard.

That's totally not where the TASM is best employed. If you're inside the enemy's radar envelope at all, then it's probably not worth shooting cruise missiles at all unless there's no helos airborn because they'll be all over you in a few minutes. Cruise missiles are over the horizon weapons. That's what the tens or hundreds of miles of range are there for. Since DW doesn't model multiple convergence zones, which you can't really count on anyhow, TA contacts aren't where I'd use them.

If malfunctions were modled, then it would be even more important to prevent the missiles from being shot down. This strengthens my argument...

Not really, because I was arguing that the best way to use cruise missiles is in large salvos and of course you're not going to find them useful weapons if you don't use them in massive salvos from an over the horizon location.


In DW, more so than in real life, saturation is essential because the ships' defenses are so capable. I don't see how this bears on the issue of range of engagement, though.

Actually, in real life situations we routinely consider the possibility of potentially HUNDREDS of cruise missiles inbound simultaneously from all directions. DW, if anything, overpowers cruise missiles. Saturation is the name of the game, unless you're trying to shoot undefended targets like merchant vessels or silly warships with their CIWS turned off.

Imagine the possibility of a coordinated attack from formations of aircraft, coastal emplacements and formations of surface ships as well as multiple submarines. Very quickly the numbers of inbound missiles starts grow. It bears on the engagement range issue, because it effects where the optimum launch point is. People have argued that it's in close, because closer in affords fewer opportunities for surface vessels to fire missiles at them and shoot them down. Unfortunately, it comes at the expense of making yourself vulnerable to ASW aircraft or sometimes even VLA.

I've argued that the best place to shoot is from max range. You can get around the problem of missiles being shot down by just shooting more missiles. If one vessel is not enough, then you need to coordinate with another. Shooting from max range buys you decreased vulnerability at the expense of maybe not always getting what you want. Oh well... at least you didn't get killed in the process.

I thought you stayed away from MP?

In general, I do.


Plus, players have no reason to be concerned with conserving stores since the sub's "deployment" ends at the end of the mission. Even in the so-called "campaign" mode, loadouts can be refreshed between missions regardless of whether the sub had a chance to return to port.

I've always thought that was probabily fairly accurate, actually. These days wars are typically quite fast, and theatres relatively small, so the sorts of extended patrols one reads about in WWII are probably not good ways of imagining what modern naval campaigns are like.


An OTH shot makes sense, especially from that kind of range. You'll get one escort "for free." However, that range scale takes this completely out of the scope of MP, and out of the scope of most SP scenarios, so criticism of players for not doing this is of limited applicability.

Naw... it's just that the SP mission designers haven't really looked at that 200Nmi max range and thought, "what could I do with those things and how?" then designed a mission around it. I've actually made one, I should finish up the notes for it and post it, because it's fun. It actually plays at a moderate speed. Since the scenario begins with you receiving OTH targeting info, you don't need to do much searching. I usually end up making my second cruise missile attack a few hours later, and my torpedo attacks about 8-10 hours later, which isn't so bad if you don't mind using time acceleration, save gaming, or even just setting your alarm clock. It's surprisingly tough too.


And you're not taking out an escort with a 4-Harpoon salvo at long range. Even the ASW-oriented Udaloy will get around 10. Even if you're lucky enough to get a single hit, you're only going to score around 33-50% damage. (Just tested---37% on a Udaloy, which I'll add was the end result of an 8-missile salvo fired from 10 miles and enabled 5 miles out! Aside: Just for the heck of it, I redid the same test from 6.5nm, scoring 3 hits for a kill.)

I always figured that the 4-Harpoon shot was worth taking just for the heck fo it. From time to time, I have gotten lucky and scored a hit or two. I don't count on it, though. I always figure that if I got it, I'm shooting it. In a coordinated attack, it'd probably be more worthwhile.


Scenario designers don't build 200nm engagements because it's too time consuming for the player. In your more typical scenario without OTH targeting, it makes more sense to close from 30-40nm to <10nm to use your missiles (assuming you use them at all) than to fire immediately.

It's not that bad, though, with features like time acceleration, save game, and the general slow pace of naval simulations allowing you to get up and do something else while the sim runs. I worry that people sometimes turn their nose up at time acceleration unfairly. In Harpoon I use it all the time, or else I just let it run in real time and do other things while I wait for the situation to develop further.

If you want fast paced, play a flight sim. One of the reasons I like naval sims, though, is that I don't have to stare at the screen all day, joystick in hand, braced for the next split second. That makes my shoulders hurt.

[Molon Labe]

Don't you think you're moving the goalposts just a little?

I've already agreed with you that if you're 200nm out, they're worth using...but that isn't the player's choice. The same goes for the existence of intel data, other subs to coordinate with, coastal batteries....

As far as creating those options...
No one's going to argue the point that, against a well-defended formation, a saturation attack is the way to go. But, DW can't handle it (especially in MP...8 missiles in the air at a time is usually enough to cause lag), and even if it could, it would be boring if all there was to the mission was going to point A firing your missiles at time X. A fundamental component of a good scenario is a challenge to overcome, and that usually takes the form of a risk of being shot at. For MP, you also have to worry about trying to set it up so that both sides have an equal chance and that the winner will be determined by performance of the players rather than the raw capabilities of the platforms (definitely not an easy task...). About the worst thing you can do is set it up so that all one side has to do is fire off a volley of missiles without ever needing to go into harm's way. And don't forget, there's no time lapse in MP.

That's part of the reason I said that I woudln't mind standoff attacks if it took place in a broader context. If you're setting up yourself based on limited intel, exposing yourself to risks in transit, and need to worry about someone being sent to get revenge--all this on an operational level rather than tactical--then there's a "there" there. (To quote my Civ Pro prof.). But I've been shooting missiles at AI since 688I. If that's all there is to it...BT, DT, MO.

And I do play flight sims too. And in a flight sim, I'd rather do a BVR joust with an Adder-packing Fulcrum or make a CBU run on a 2S6-protected column than lob HARMs at SA-10s from standoff range or plink off some MiG-21s. :D

[Nexus7]

I voted yes, but this is true only when i satisfy some conditions:

- I in no way am in a hurry to find and later sink the enemy.
- I have and can hold a good tactical awareness (where is who).
- I dispose of many tactics to choose from. Usually a variegate topography helps.
- I am able to predict enemy's intections (manual TMA helps).
- The enemy capt is not more skilled than me (there's ppl around I'd loose 8 times out of 10 against).
- I can stay concentrated for at least 30 minutes consecutively.
- ...

I think it's hard to answer this poll question, maybe more interesting would be to hear:

"What makes a sub cdr an ace of the depths ?"

[Dr.Sid]

What makes you good ? Experience .. hours and hours of playing .. nothing else.

[FIREWALL]

NOPE

And I like to drink alot. :yep:

[SeaQueen]

As far as creating those options...
No one's going to argue the point that, against a well-defended formation, a saturation attack is the way to go. But, DW can't handle it (especially in MP...8 missiles in the air at a time is usually enough to cause lag), and even if it could, it would be boring if all there was to the mission was going to point A firing your missiles at time X.

The thing is, only so many ships from the formation are going to be sunk. So you'll still have to intercept the formation and attack with torpedoes.

About the worst thing you can do is set it up so that all one side has to do is fire off a volley of missiles without ever needing to go into harm's way. And don't forget, there's no time lapse in MP.

Eventually you'd have to close, but you're right, the lack of time acceleration is a problem. From what I've seen 8 hours is about as long as most people are willing to play a game in one sitting, but if I plan it correctly I think it's managable.


That's part of the reason I said that I woudln't mind standoff attacks if it took place in a broader context. If you're setting up yourself based on limited intel, exposing yourself to risks in transit, and need to worry about someone being sent to get revenge--all this on an operational level rather than tactical--then there's a "there" there.

It's not operational level. It's just that the distance scale of a tactical engagement is expanded greatly by the extreme range of the missiles.

[Molon Labe]

I meant the risks were on an operational level....stuff that's generally beyond the scope of DW. (for example, a CVH moving to a new AO for ASW duty in response to missiles being fired out of that area...or intermittent sonobuoy contacts suggesting SSNs have been moving into that area, etc) it's very hard to use scripts to change the deployment of enemy forces based on events because trigger doctrines and scripts have to be too specific...and you can't count on players to do that unless there is enough time available for those choices to make a difference...


You can get people in 8 hour MP? That's awesome!
If people are really sticking around that long, that gives me a lot more options when I write stuff...

[SeaQueen]

You can get people in 8 hour MP? That's awesome!
If people are really sticking around that long, that gives me a lot more options when I write stuff...

That's sort of the upper bound of what I hear people saying. As long as people know what they're supposed to be doing, I think 8 hours is not unreasonable, though. It's an afternoon's game, something to do on a lazy Saturday, ya know? I think the problems arise when people aren't given a clear direction. It's no fun to spend 8 hours trying to accomplish something vague or even completely indeterminate. It's fun when you know what the object of the game is.

[Molon Labe]

You can get people in 8 hour MP? That's awesome!
If people are really sticking around that long, that gives me a lot more options when I write stuff...
That's sort of the upper bound of what I hear people saying. As long as people know what they're supposed to be doing, I think 8 hours is not unreasonable, though. It's an afternoon's game, something to do on a lazy Saturday, ya know? I think the problems arise when people aren't given a clear direction. It's no fun to spend 8 hours trying to accomplish something vague or even completely indeterminate. It's fun when you know what the object of the game is.

Damn, and here I thought you had this little cult I didn't know about.
3 hours is pushing it for most people. I'd love to set an afternoon aside for a "good" DW match, though.

[LoBlo]

Now that's its possible for missiles and torps to home in on dead platforms, that's going to make mass salvo tatics even less productive since several missiles and torps will probably home in on already dead platforms.

[SeaQueen]

Now that's its possible for missiles and torps to home in on dead platforms, that's going to make mass salvo tatics even less productive since several missiles and torps will probably home in on already dead platforms.

Oddly, I've never seen missiles home on multiple platforms, so I doubt it will change much. I think it has something to do with the way they always go after the closest target.

[LoBlo]

I have, but only for the SS-N-27 ASM. It would redirect if the target it was homing on was killed before it got there. I once scored a 100 kill on a spruce, and 20% kill on a Nimtz from 100 nm because the missiles redirected to the center of the formation after the Spruce was killed.

Now though, its more realistic. Just shot a volley of missiles at a OHP and all homed in (the ones that weren't spoofed by chaff) even after the platform was dead. Fun stuff. Will keep players more honest about how effective there attacks are. :yep:

[SeaQueen]

Now though, its more realistic. Just shot a volley of missiles at a OHP and all homed in (the ones that weren't spoofed by chaff) even after the platform was dead. Fun stuff. Will keep players more honest about how effective there attacks are. :yep:

I don't know how realistic any of it is, honestly. There's a tendancy to pour cruise missiles into ships even after they're probably out of action. Part of that is due to a lack of damage assessment. Realistically, if you're watching a radar screen, you really can't tell how much damage a ship has suffered unless it's totally blown to pieces and simply disappears. There's also, like you said, the tendancy of missiles that are already in flight to home on targets that are already out of action.

The thing is, realistically, different missiles also have different seeker logic. Some, for example, might go to the largest radar reflection, others might go to the closest, they'll probably also have some algorithm in them for trying to recognize countermeasures that might be more or less effective, still others might try to compare the reflected radar signal against a database of radar reflections and go after what it considers to be the highest value target. When you roll it all in together, who really knows what the heck the missile is going to go after? I'm not sure that's easily predicted.

So... one should avoid claims that any particular heuristic in a wargame is more realistic than others. They're all questionable. I think the most important thing is to state the assumption and then let people argue about it, then try to see what matters. It's sort of interesting to me to see how many of the things that even very knowledgable people throw their hands up at and say, "Oh my god! that's not how it works..." and then they make you change it, only to find that you get the same answer.

[LoBlo]

Thats one of the reason I wish there was a seperate CM effectiveness for each sensor type (instead of a blanket CM effectiveness given to the CM). It would allow some artistic license to assign varying sofistication to the individual seekers (torp and missiles) to simulate different anti-CM logic.

So... one should avoid claims that any particular heuristic in a wargame is more realistic than others. They're all questionable. I think the most important thing is to state the assumption and then let people argue about it, then try to see what matters. It's sort of interesting to me to see how many of the things that even very knowledgable people throw their hands up at and say, "Oh my god! that's not how it works..." and then they make you change it, only to find that you get the same answer.

I use the claim of realism with some reservation unless I feel that there's a blatant feel of "gameyness" to a behavior. Magic instantaneous disappearance of a targets radar/active sonar signal once it reaches 100% damage was pretty gamey. Now there's some persistance to the signal (at least for a little bit). Its would be hard to argue that's thats not more realistic, unless you consider missiles that "talk" to each other and divide targets in a coordinated fashion. (supposedly shipwreck missiles are rumored to have some sorta function like this).

[Iron Budokan]

You kidding me? I'm awful. I shouldn't be let anywhere near an ocean much less a multi-million dollar submarine! :rotfl:

[SeaQueen]

Thats one of the reason I wish there was a seperate CM effectiveness for each sensor type (instead of a blanket CM effectiveness given to the CM). It would allow some artistic license to assign varying sofistication to the individual seekers (torp and missiles) to simulate different anti-CM logic.

That's why I like how Harpoon resolves combat. As far as I can tell, in DW the target missiles home on is heavily weighted towards the closest target. In truth it's not always that simple. There are SO many types of countermeasures out there, chaff... flares... floating... hovering... then on top of that is various types of jamming. It's amazing that anybody can manage to hit anything these days.

Its would be hard to argue that's thats not more realistic, unless you consider missiles that "talk" to each other and divide targets in a coordinated fashion. (supposedly shipwreck missiles are rumored to have some sorta function like this).

Who knows? For decades the whole focus of sensors and weapons was how to bounce energy off a target at get as much back as possible. Now you're right up against the physical limits of what is possible, so the big advances in cruise missile effectiveness aren't probably going to be in who makes the one with the better seeker, engine, airframe or warhead. It's going to be who makes the one with the best algorithm on some chip somewhere in the missile to pick out targets, distinguish and ignore countermeasures, avoid the things shot at it, and whatever else. I think they're going to be experimenting with all kinds of strange technologies well into the future.

[Molon Labe]

Now though, its more realistic. Just shot a volley of missiles at a OHP and all homed in (the ones that weren't spoofed by chaff) even after the platform was dead. Fun stuff. Will keep players more honest about how effective there attacks are. :yep:
I don't know how realistic any of it is, honestly. There's a tendancy to pour cruise missiles into ships even after they're probably out of action. Part of that is due to a lack of damage assessment. Realistically, if you're watching a radar screen, you really can't tell how much damage a ship has suffered unless it's totally blown to pieces and simply disappears. There's also, like you said, the tendancy of missiles that are already in flight to home on targets that are already out of action.

The thing is, realistically, different missiles also have different seeker logic. Some, for example, might go to the largest radar reflection, others might go to the closest, they'll probably also have some algorithm in them for trying to recognize countermeasures that might be more or less effective, still others might try to compare the reflected radar signal against a database of radar reflections and go after what it considers to be the highest value target. When you roll it all in together, who really knows what the heck the missile is going to go after? I'm not sure that's easily predicted.

So... one should avoid claims that any particular heuristic in a wargame is more realistic than others. They're all questionable. I think the most important thing is to state the assumption and then let people argue about it, then try to see what matters. It's sort of interesting to me to see how many of the things that even very knowledgable people throw their hands up at and say, "Oh my god! that's not how it works..." and then they make you change it, only to find that you get the same answer.

SQ: I think a seeker model that takes into account different radar reflections and feeds that information into a program/doctrine (possibly involving presets) that determines which reflection becomes the target, is more realistic than an abstracted model that always homes in on the nearest target in the cone. We still get to argue about the programs.

LB: As for the missiles still homing on dead ships...remember first that this option is, well, and option, and if it's producing results you don't like, you can always set it back. In terms of the combat SQ's been talking about, it won't make a difference because a single shooter wasn't going to get more than one ship anyways, and multiple shooters would be shooting from different directions and would acquire different targets.

Generally: I'm really happy about the homing on dead platforms option...I thought it was ridiculous that torps/missiles would pass through the same ship which had just taken its last hit 2 seconds before. It's very much a welcome improvement. That being said, there is a chance of unintended consequences. Assuming missiles can tell a motionless platform from a moving one in RL and would discriminate based upon that, this could mean that ships in the lead of a formation that were sunk with the first salvo may become missile sponges for the survivors during the second salvo. It also means that ships that should have been blown to bits or split in two (small neutrals getting in the way, smaller combattants hit by AS-4's, etc.) will act as missile sponges when they shouldn't even be producing valid radar returns. The circumstances under which these potential problems (only potential b/c we don't actually know the homing logic) occur are much more limited than the original issue this was meant to address, so it's a net gain.

[Molon Labe]

I have, but only for the SS-N-27 ASM. It would redirect if the target it was homing on was killed before it got there. I once scored a 100 kill on a spruce, and 20% kill on a Nimtz from 100 nm because the missiles redirected to the center of the formation after the Spruce was killed.

Now though, its more realistic. Just shot a volley of missiles at a OHP and all homed in (the ones that weren't spoofed by chaff) even after the platform was dead. Fun stuff. Will keep players more honest about how effective there attacks are. :yep:

Because of it's higher speed, the -27 is crosses the distance between acquisition and impact much more quickly than its subsonic cousins. (especially true of the two-stage version, since the missiles inside acquisition range are moving faster than those outside). The first missiles are also much more likely to hit with -27s than with 'poons/tasms. A salvo of -27s is therefore more likely to kill its target before all missiles in the salvo have acquired it...the missiles that acquired the target before it died will not resume seeking and will be removed by the sim when they reach the dead platform. Those missiles that did not acquire before the target died are free to acquire any other valid target. So that's why you see this with the -27 and not the others.

[SeaQueen]

SQ: I think a seeker model that takes into account different radar reflections and feeds that information into a program/doctrine (possibly involving presets) that determines which reflection becomes the target, is more realistic than an abstracted model that always homes in on the nearest target in the cone. We still get to argue about the programs.

It might be, particularly for more advanced missiles. For other missiles it might not be the case. By talking about radar reflections, though, you're really opening a can of worms because then someone is going to say, "but RCS is aspect dependent!" and they'd be right, so that's a whole new layer of complication. The problem is further complicated by RCS reducing measures aboard a lot of new warships. Arleigh Burkes are probably the most obvious examples with their fasceted superstructures. Another good example would be the LPD-17s, with their masts covered in an RCS reducing fairing. Supposedly LCS is supposed to have a super low RCS. There's also things like the Chinese low observable missile boats, and other ships not modeled in DW. Honestly, I'm not sure the radar model is really up to it in DW.

I'd almost rather the missiles pick out a target in their seeker cone at random.

[LoBlo]

I have, but only for the SS-N-27 ASM. It would redirect if the target it was homing on was killed before it got there. I once scored a 100 kill on a spruce, and 20% kill on a Nimtz from 100 nm because the missiles redirected to the center of the formation after the Spruce was killed.

Now though, its more realistic. Just shot a volley of missiles at a OHP and all homed in (the ones that weren't spoofed by chaff) even after the platform was dead. Fun stuff. Will keep players more honest about how effective there attacks are. :yep:

Because of it's higher speed, the -27 is crosses the distance between acquisition and impact much more quickly than its subsonic cousins. (especially true of the two-stage version, since the missiles inside acquisition range are moving faster than those outside). The first missiles are also much more likely to hit with -27s than with 'poons/tasms. A salvo of -27s is therefore more likely to kill its target before all missiles in the salvo have acquired it...the missiles that acquired the target before it died will not resume seeking and will be removed by the sim when they reach the dead platform. Those missiles that did not acquire before the target died are free to acquire any other valid target. So that's why you see this with the -27 and not the others.

Not really. In my personal version of DW the 27's 2nd stage has some pretty long acquistion ranges and are actively homing in before redirecting. I've never been able to explain the behavior and why its different that a subsonic, but with 1.04 its a mute point

[LoBlo]

You kidding me? I'm awful. I shouldn't be let anywhere near an ocean much less a multi-million dollar submarine! :rotfl:

aha, well honesty is the first step into improvement... errr... or so they say.