New MP Missions In The Works – I Need Some Help Please

[suBB]

Hi, long time no see :p


Well, here I go:

Since Conflicting Interests V1.01 (http://subb.bravehost.com/ConflictingInterestsv1.01.zip) I’m (slowly) getting into the mood of editing again, but I need some assistance with something 1st. But 1st, I need to tell you what I have in store. The next set of maps will include a 3 map set involving infiltration, missile deployment and survival of a lone 688 up against anywhere from light to heavy RU defenses where AI platforms can be influenced by human playables. The problem is I need to find a good area for this to take place, which is where you guys come in. Maybe someone can find an area that might recreate a scenario in a book you’ve read or something. Meanwhile I’ll start looking as well.

The following are the parameters I have in place already, I just need a play area.

MISSION TITLE:

TBD

PLATFORM:

DW on 1.04 / LWAMI ONLY. However, the map can be played on stock, but quality and integrity of the experience can’t be guaranteed.

RUN-TIME:

4 hours which will involve the requirement of achieving safe distance unharmed, ROE compliance / violation, patrolling, intel gathering, POSID and authorization, asset management, human influence over AI platforms.

PLAYABLES:

1.. 1 x 688i

2.. 2 x Akula 2 (maybe 3)

AREA: (TBD)

Three separate MP maps: For this to fly I need a ‘general area’ of sorts that will be patrolled / defended by RU forces, where RU AI will be influenced by human playables. Random patrol routes by AI platforms (air and surface) will include passive buoy and ASW mine deployment. I need the 688 to be able to approach from various entryways into this general area. 688 will be required to infiltrate RU defenses unharmed. RU will be required to patrol, classify and eliminate the 688 if/ when found. If detected, the presence of the 688 could lead (random events) to additional RU assets (asw maritime patrol, surface, etc) dispatched to the area(MAP A only). Map A will include light to medium RU defenses depending on the 688 skippers’ abilities of remaining stealth while in transit and avoiding detection. Map C will include the same mission statement for the 688, except this time RU defenses will be heavy, and possibly a 3rd RU platform added. MAP B will be a strike mission for the 688 where intel must be collected and authorization must be granted to attack and will then be required to reach safe distance unharmed. RU will attempt to prevent any action(s) of the 688, as well as attempt to eliminate the 688 once located, POSID’ed and authorized to do so.

POSID:

ALL MAPS - RU must attempt to POSID the 688, radio in the contact to neighboring units and wait for authorization to attack. Which means any sort of randomness I decide to spawn from that will require the detecting RU playable to achieve comms depth in order to be triggered.

MAP B – If possible, 688 must POSID target of interest with UAV and radio in the contact(achieve comms depth).
If 688 fails to POSID target of interest, 688 must abort mission and reach safe distance.

ROE:

Map A - RU ROE will be HOLD until POSID on 688, followed by authorization of attack and elimination of the 688. For the 688, ROE will be HOLD but subject to change if any RU weapon comes within critical distance of ownship. When this occurs, the 688 will be authorized to attack, however still required to reach safe distance, in this case infiltration into general area.

Map B – RU ROE will be HOLD until attacked, followed by POSID and authorization. The 688 will be required to gain intelligence of a target of interest, by means of a submarine launched UAV (credit to MaHuJa), POSID, authorization, deploy missiles and reach safe distance unharmed. ROE is therefore HOLD until intel is obtained followed by authorization.

MAP C – both sides ROE FREE but with RU heavy defenses. Human RU will have influence over AI platforms and required to locate and destroy the 688. The 688 will be required to reach safe distance unharmed, be it by means of stealth or shooting its way out in the progress.

ACOUSTIC CONDITIONS:

Surface duct - Through extensive testing of various SSP, sea state, weather, seasonal and bottom types, the SSP type is really the contributing factor to acoustic conditions. However the terrain chosen for this mission combined with said SSP will create a mixed acoustic environment in shallow waters, forcing a bottom limited SSP into existence, until deeper water is achieved.

TRANSIT DISTANCE:

Transit Distance (TBD) will be feasible and achievable by the 688 at cruising speeds that allow the 688 to maintain a sense of stealth. RU playable will have the entire general area to patrol with assistance of / influence over AI platforms

OUTCOME CONDITIONS(subject to occur at any moment based on the state of the situation in real-time):

MAPS A & C:

1.. 688 must reach safe distance unharmed within 4 hours. If reach safe distance unharmed, mission ends.

2.. If 688 does not reach safe distance within 4 hours. RU has technically prevented the 688 from reaching safe distance, mission ends.

3.. if 688 is destroyed by RU or careless action, mission ends

4.. if ROE is violated by RU, mission ends. (MAP A only)

5.. If ROE is violated by US, mission ends (MAP A only)

MAPS B:

1.. if 688 gain intel, wait for authorization, deploy missiles, successfully destroy target(s) and reach safe distance unharmed, mission ends.

2.. If 688 fails to gain intel, 688 must abort and attempt to reach safe distance. If 688 reach safety after abort, mission ends.

3.. if 688 destroyed mission ends

4.. if ROE is violated by RU, mission ends.

5.. If ROE is violated by US, mission ends

6.. If 688 does not reach safe distance within 4 hours. RU has technically prevented the 688 from reaching safe distance, mission ends.

DYNAMIC LOCATIONS:

688 spawn – various entry points into general area, MAP B

RU spawn - playables within the general area. RU AI TBD, MAP B

RANDOMNESS:

UAV spawn - simulate various flight plans (dynamic group)

RU surface – RU surface and maritime patrol, passive buoy deployment, asw mine deployment. (dynamic group)

Target spawn – simulate reliability of intelligence, forced to abort operations if not reliable. (dynamic group)

LAST MINUTE THOUGHTS:

I think deployment of the UAV in MAP B could justify RU ROE to change from HOLD to FREE, w/o need to classify the 688.

Since I have a laptop, full function testing will require two people minimum.

Due to the availability of MP mission objective players, map will be created for MP only and not coded for SP (AI coding), which will lead to faster completion time.

Need to figure out how to allow the 688 to deploy UAV at will based on certain conditions (might need doctrine)


That’s all I have for now.. I appreciate the help / feedback….


Thanks,

suBB

[Molon Labe]

This sounds like it's going to be an interesting project.

As far as possible OpAreas go, choices are somewhat limited by the fact that Russia only has 4 points of access to the worlds oceans: the barrents/arctic, the baltic, the black sea, and okoskt. Chosing between those is going to depend on your backstory and the tactical situation you want to create.

As far as backstories go, your strongest candidate is the Baltic, followed by the Black Sea. Russia has been freaking out the Baltic states as of late, and with a little bit of imagination, you can apply similar pressures in southwestern asia that might cause Russia to come into conflict with the Ukraine, or more likely, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia. Turkey would likely side with G/A/A over Russia, which means NATO has access to the Black Sea. The barrents isn't bad, but the White Sea (S. of arctic, E. of Barrents) and Okhost don't seem to be areas where naval conflict is plausible.

In terms of assets, the Barrents is strongest, since that's where most of the sub fleet is based--akulas in particular. Of course, with a little bit of strategic pretext, those assets can be redeployed. The Black Sea is going to be the worst off in terms of assets present without being redeployed, sub assets in particular.

Tactically speaking, I think depth is going to be a consideration, since you'll probably want a layer to play with. This will be a major blow to the baltic and barrents. It'll hurt the White sea as well, but it does have some deep canyons. The Black Sea and Okhost can both get quite deep.

[Molon Labe]

Oh, by the way, DW doesn't "force a bottom limited SSP into existance." If the SSP is set to SD or CV but is in fact, limited by the bottom, the surface duct in the upper layer will still exist.

[suBB]

:up:

Thanks a bunch molon, I’m checking depth in these areas in the editor. And yes I’m definitely interested in a layer as well deep canyons. Also if you can point me in the right direction as to the actual filenames for various .wavs used (such as check for radio messages) that would save me the trouble(and .zip file size) of custom sounds. I know there is a list somewhere out there I can’t seem to remember where I saw it last.

thanks

[Molon Labe]

:up:

Thanks a bunch molon, I’m checking depth in these areas in the editor. And yes I’m definitely interested in a layer as well deep canyons. Also if you can point me in the right direction as to the actual filenames for various .wavs used (such as check for radio messages) that would save me the trouble(and .zip file size) of custom sounds. I know there is a list somewhere out there I can’t seem to remember where I saw it last.

thanks

http://www.subguru.com/DW_missions/missioneditorsounds.zip

[suBB]

This sounds like it's going to be an interesting project.

As far as possible OpAreas go, choices are somewhat limited by the fact that Russia only has 4 points of access to the worlds oceans: the barrents/arctic, the baltic, the black sea, and okoskt. Chosing between those is going to depend on your backstory and the tactical situation you want to create.

As far as backstories go, your strongest candidate is the Baltic, followed by the Black Sea. Russia has been freaking out the Baltic states as of late, and with a little bit of imagination, you can apply similar pressures in southwestern asia that might cause Russia to come into conflict with the Ukraine, or more likely, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia. Turkey would likely side with G/A/A over Russia, which means NATO has access to the Black Sea. The barrents isn't bad, but the White Sea (S. of arctic, E. of Barrents) and Okhost don't seem to be areas where naval conflict is plausible.

In terms of assets, the Barrents is strongest, since that's where most of the sub fleet is based--akulas in particular. Of course, with a little bit of strategic pretext, those assets can be redeployed. The Black Sea is going to be the worst off in terms of assets present without being redeployed, sub assets in particular.

Tactically speaking, I think depth is going to be a consideration, since you'll probably want a layer to play with. This will be a major blow to the baltic and barrents. It'll hurt the White sea as well, but it does have some deep canyons. The Black Sea and Okhost can both get quite deep.
It looks like the black sea will be the op area for the 3 map set and here are some things to consider:

1.. for what I have in mind, the black sea offers a number of entryways spanning over a 280nm stretch, on a longitude roughly at the RU / Georgian boarder. So for map A, the 688 approach could be anywhere from the south along that stretch. Considering the maritime support, buoy deployment, 2 AK2s, and influence over AI platforms(mainly air units), with the right planning RU shouldn’t have a problem covering the entire area. But if the 688 is detected, I’ll spawn another maritime unit and have it dispatched into the general area of RU forces, since air support can arrive much faster than anything else. I do have concern that appears to be almost a dead giveaway, and that is POSID conducted by AI platforms. I’ll need to test human influence over AI but 9 out of 10 AI gets the class dead on 100%, at least this was my experience in conflict of interest v1.00 on 1.03 and lwami < 3.08. For this reason I would like POSID conducted by human drivers, but still I need to test human influence on v.104 / 3.08. Also when ROE comes into play, if by default ROE is peacetime, AI will class a hostile as friendly and not engage, when they should class as unknown(I think) since intentions aren’t very clear at that point. But in wartime, AI will class as hostile and engage. So when attempting to influence AI platforms, always use unknown until otherwise, or AI will violate ROE.

2.. we could enter the area from the east anywhere on a 144nm stretch of latitude, same level of support as (1) but when air assets come into play for RU I think 144nm can be covered much faster than 280nm. For that reason the experience may be short lived.

3.. deep waters and layer present in the black sea, but no canyons to be found anywhere in areas suggested. Too bad we can’t edit our own land formations. Moving forward the baltic and barrents will serve purpose for a future project involving shallow water ops, so I’ll keep these areas in mind.

4.. back story-wise there is no need to consider the white sea or Okhost, so for those reasons I left them alone. Based on your suggestions, the black sea could lead to yet another project but different mission parameters, mainly for akula missions, but that is TBD.

Good stuff, Molon :up:… I guess I’ll get cracking with testing.


Thanks!!!

[Molon Labe]

1.. for what I have in mind, the black sea offers a number of entryways spanning over a 280nm stretch, on a longitude roughly at the RU / Georgian boarder. So for map A, the 688 approach could be anywhere from the south along that stretch. Considering the maritime support, buoy deployment, 2 AK2s, and influence over AI platforms(mainly air units), with the right planning RU shouldn’t have a problem covering the entire area. But if the 688 is detected, I’ll spawn another maritime unit and have it dispatched into the general area of RU forces, since air support can arrive much faster than anything else. I do have concern that appears to be almost a dead giveaway, and that is POSID conducted by AI platforms. I’ll need to test human influence over AI but 9 out of 10 AI gets the class dead on 100%, at least this was my experience in conflict of interest v1.00 on 1.03 and lwami < 3.08. For this reason I would like POSID conducted by human drivers, but still I need to test human influence on v.104 / 3.08. Also when ROE comes into play, if by default ROE is peacetime, AI will class a hostile as friendly and not engage, when they should class as unknown(I think) since intentions aren’t very clear at that point. But in wartime, AI will class as hostile and engage. So when attempting to influence AI platforms, always use unknown until otherwise, or AI will violate ROE.
The AI doesn't handle very many different versions of ID. It's pretty much on or off. So, to make sure that enemy platforms would engage players at more or less the same time that platform would engage if a human was controlling it, the distance that ID occurs at is longer than you might be used to in LW/Ami.


3.. deep waters and layer present in the black sea, but no canyons to be found anywhere in areas suggested. Too bad we can’t edit our own land formations. Moving forward the baltic and barrents will serve purpose for a future project involving shallow water ops, so I’ll keep these areas in mind.
If you're dead set on canyons, the White Sea may be the place to go. That sort of area is usually only used for under the ice boomer hunting though. And depending on what you want to do, the canyons might not be well placed.

[suBB]

You think(IIRC) the “plot solution” script will work on land-based targets, I can’t see why it wouldn’t? If so, that script + approach goals = UAV real-time data for map B.

[Molon Labe]

You think(IIRC) the “plot solution” script will work on land-based targets, I can’t see why it wouldn’t? If so, that script + approach goals = UAV real-time data for map B.

I used the solution script in Taiwan ARG to provide the 688I the precise location of SSM batteries. They show up as surface instead of land, but you can put the waypoint over it just as easily.

[suBB]

Update 092807

All is well with Map A over LAN connection (MP) except for one thing, and that is, the Big Bad Bear is emitting. In qualification testing he can be picked up on ESM, but I don’t think there is a way to shut it off or disable using scripts.

Also, for heavier defenses, I need some RU surface platforms capable of deploying sonobuoys, but can’t seem to find any. The USNI reference makes no mention of any RU surface equipped with sonobuoys, but I guess if said platform is equipped with the KA-27 Helix, it too is also capable of sonobuoy deployment.

I think there is nothing that can be done about the bear emitting, and I guess ill dig a little deeper in finding the surface platform(s) I need.

:ping: ya later

[suBB]

Molon,

You ever witness AI aircraft breaking the specified search tactic and loiter like we saw in the data? Because that’s the best way I can describe whats going on w/ the new buoy deployment design. It’s like he attempts the tactic, then after he rebounds off of the boundary, he decides to loiter, and no matter what tactic or combination of transit / transit search / tactic, I can’t seem to control it. :stare:

The only solution I have in mind is have the bear fly waypoints over the area, which contributes to predictability, but randomly select cruise speeds each time the map is loaded. If I have to do this, then there needs to be more randomness (the bear) elsewhere to try and offset predictability. Maybe there is enough randomness of 688 spawn along 264nm that the bear w/ waypoints may not be bad after all.

Any ideas?

[Molon Labe]

Molon,

You ever witness AI aircraft breaking the specified search tactic and loiter like we saw in the data? Because that’s the best way I can describe whats going on w/ the new buoy deployment design. It’s like he attempts the tactic, then after he rebounds off of the boundary, he decides to loiter, and no matter what tactic or combination of transit / transit search / tactic, I can’t seem to control it. :stare:

The only solution I have in mind is have the bear fly waypoints over the area, which contributes to predictability, but randomly select cruise speeds each time the map is loaded. If I have to do this, then there needs to be more randomness (the bear) elsewhere to try and offset predictability. Maybe there is enough randomness of 688 spawn along 264nm that the bear w/ waypoints may not be bad after all.

Any ideas?
I think with fixed-wing aircraft, the waypoint tolerances (created automatically by the sim for the tactic assigned; not anything you see in the editor) are too tight for the AI navigation routines to meet. Aircraft trying to go to a specific point as part of the tactic end up missing it, turning around and missing it again almost endlessly. So what we end up seeing just looks random and senseless.


If you want to do assiged waypoints, what I would suggest is to use dynamic groups or dynamic locations to spawn the bear. If you use DL's, the waypoints will move relative to the placement of the bear. That would allow you to have it fly the same pattern, but in different places for different spawns. If you use dynamic groups, you will be able to set waypoints for each spawn.

I think what I would do here is to assign the bear an area to cover, with buoy spawns in that area as you have been doing. (Or maybe even abstract a bit and place the buoys instead of spawning them; refresh them after 2 hours.... essentially, simply assume the bear has the buoy loadout to cover that area continuously for 4 hours). But, using what I've described above, make that area different with each spawn. My suggestion would be to do this with dynamic groups, so that the spawns of the subs would compliment the assigned area of the bear rather than just being totally random. This would allow you to simulate a coordinated screen, maximizing the effectiveness of the assets in a manner similar to what players would accomplish if we had a playable bear, while at the same time not revealing to anyone ahead of time where the bear and buoys will be.

I think the way this plays out is the 688I player uses ESM to guestimate where the bear is covering, then avoids that area and ends up having to try to slip past one of the Akulas. So one of the two akulas should have a chance at seeing some action.

[suBB]

I think with fixed-wing aircraft, the waypoint tolerances (created automatically by the sim for the tactic assigned; not anything you see in the editor) are too tight for the AI navigation routines to meet. Aircraft trying to go to a specific point as part of the tactic end up missing it, turning around and missing it again almost endlessly. So what we end up seeing just looks random and senseless.

I’ll run with that, because the same search tactic used for the helo in CI v1.00 worked like a charm, which was random search box.

If you want to do assiged waypoints, what I would suggest is to use dynamic groups or dynamic locations to spawn the bear. If you use DL's, the waypoints will move relative to the placement of the bear. That would allow you to have it fly the same pattern, but in different places for different spawns. If you use dynamic groups, you will be able to set waypoints for each spawn.

Now keep in mind that this map (beta map A) is a two-in-one package, where in the beta phase it’s pretty much entry of the 688. For this reason I rather not have the bear randomly spawned w/ DL, to me that means he is already airborne and in the area, which isn’t a bad idea for the exit attempt so this may play well for map C. But for map A I rather have the bear deployed from inland where I’m currently using RSB around the airport to randomize departure times. At 1st I did attempt to use DL for the same reason, but somehow it was causing the map to crash, and that is where RSB came in. Further, I rather not toy around w/ the bear and DL since it caused me nothing but problems. For some odd reason I can pull DL even combined with RSB w/ anything but aircraft.

I should have been more specific(sorry) that waypoint assignment was intended for buoy spawning, which also brings up another good point you mentioned, and that is ‘the playable bear’ In that regard I can’t see why we couldn’t use waypoints as if is WERE playable. And considering the mission tasking I know I would fly well ahead of the zone and start working my way backwards for close range support. I think it would be somewhat lame to plot waypoints through every last buoy, but with some imagination we can make it as such that the area is covered and the bear means business.

I think what I would do here is to assign the bear an area to cover, with buoy spawns in that area as you have been doing. (Or maybe even abstract a bit and place the buoys instead of spawning them; refresh them after 2 hours.... essentially, simply assume the bear has the buoy loadout to cover that area continuously for 4 hours). But, using what I've described above, make that area different with each spawn. My suggestion would be to do this with dynamic groups, so that the spawns of the subs would compliment the assigned area of the bear rather than just being totally random. This would allow you to simulate a coordinated screen, maximizing the effectiveness of the assets in a manner similar to what players would accomplish if we had a playable bear, while at the same time not revealing to anyone ahead of time where the bear and buoys will be.

Well, an area has already been assigned and that is the restricted area, of which at 370 to 400 kts he should be able to cover. And w/ the new buoy design, it's very likely now than before but stills need tweaking. The red subs currently use DL / RSB combo within the restricted across the longitude, where each sub covers 50% of the area. Blue sub uses RSB across the longitude just outside the restricted area. As long as the bear is doing his job w/ buoys, more than likely the bear will have 1st detection if the 688 is noisy enough or unluckily has a buoy ‘dropped’ on top of him or the bear picks him up on MAD while in route. Until I get to the bottom of why DL w/ bear was causing the map to crash, that’s not going to be an option. For now lets try and ponder other solution(s) not involving the bear & DL

I think the way this plays out is the 688I player uses ESM to guestimate where the bear is covering, then avoids that area and ends up having to try to slip past one of the Akulas. So one of the two akulas should have a chance at seeing some action.

That is a possibility but I’m trying to establish a sense of freedom in the scenario and not attempt to force things to happen while in the same place drivers in situations where they are accountable for their own actions. After the 688 brief and if he decides to snoop around on-the-clock, well he asked for it when the crap hits the curb. I mean, look what we went through in testing in trying to find the 688. Still its too soon to make a call on red side until the map is up to par again, which now needs tweaking. You also realize that foogle screwed up his NAV calculations, placing him in a situation to make up for the lost time. In doing so he was flank for most of the time, and IF i stayed with the plan of patrolling east and the bear was working, more than likely we could have intercepted.

And don’t think the 688 is out of reach even over 55nm x 264nm. If the map was working the way it should(hopefully it will be shortly) and was detected, the 688 could have been easily intercepted by either one of us. And you were farther away from him then I was. With link data provided, clearance to fire and about a 45 nm stretch on your part (1:15 at flank) would have placed you in position for a coordinated attack using stallions, at least, followed by the bear rallying or sent(ai influence) to the area. My 1st concern about red force was tactical options, which at 1st I was dumbfounded and overwhelmed by the coverage, but looking back and considering the akulas’ wonderful line-up of ordinance, there were a few options available for both of us or individually. Actually I could have done better that time around, molon I spawned near the border and wasn’t thinking clearly when I should have closed farther south then start my search. :oops:

Considering my hang-ups w the bear and DL, I think if we can come with a way using waypoints for buoy spawn, that isn’t cheesy yet effective, there is still room for randomness, then that would be an accomplishment. Let’s chalk it up as a custom search tactic. :up:

[Molon Labe]

Well, if you're assigning the bear waypoints, then the buoy field is going to be the same every time. The only thing you change using just an RSB is when the bear gets to the waypoints. DL or DG lets you use waypoints and get a different field. I don't think there are any other tools than those three, so I'm not sure where you want to go after the waypoints tactic is chosen.

[suBB]

Got it fixed with random box and let's just say loitering is a thing of the past. And don't ask me how or why, but setting the tolerance of the waypoint BEFORE entering the tactic to 8nm smooths out the course changes WHILE using the tactic, thus preventing the loitering around missed waypoints.

But I need more proof so I'm collecting data in time compression over various sets. So far, results are consistant and dynamic over 3 sets.

:ping: ya later

[suBB]

Map status 110207

Ok,

I know I’ve spoken with everyone of you on an individual basis, but I feel its’ good to bring this out in the open and decide what really makes sense and what direction to take. Plus this is good data for sake of record keeping.

So, let’s begin.

1.. CZ test results / conclusion:

We figured that the change to CZ would give RU subs a greater chance at 1st detection, but it turns out that attempting to resolve this possible issue has turned into something bigger. The problem now using a CZ is that if you know how it works, meaning that detection occurs at a defined range of 30nm, then there is opportunity that either side can exploit this SSP. In fact you won’t even need to do TMA or even calculate the speed since you basically know the end solution to TMA; the range. Therefore, CZ cannot be used. And I don’t think we can say exactly what RU subs or 688 will do or handle a situation like this, simply because everyone is different and everyone makes different choices. In closing the goal here is to give subs on both sides a chance at detection, not a promise or a guarantee.

2.. SD / 84 Buoys / bear 400 kts:

Prior to the change to CZ, SD was in place and we were convinced that SD was a problem for RU having a chance at 1st detection, but I think it depends on how you look at it. It seemed like SD reduced the chances of RU subs making 1st detection, but based on the bears’ coding of a full load of buoys capable of scanning both sides of the layer, where 50% of them are VLAD which are good for deep running contacts, SD DOES NOT affect RED SIDE chances of detection, which I figure that rings in @ 50% base, simply because of the buoys will more than likely be in position before RU subs can, and with the presence of red side acoustic ships capable of scanning both sides of the layer also, red side detection base > 50% SD also removes any room for exploit of any kind, however RU subs still have a chance of 1st detection across the board depending on spawn and any clue given by the 688 of its whereabouts(cavitating) to a listening akula. RU subs will have a greater chance of 2nd detection, and what I mean by that if detected by MAD or buoys or red surface, RU subs could be in a position to intercept. The presence of red side acoustic intel ships increases the red side base detection to over 50%, while in the same time has no effect on RU sub 1st detection. Also I just realized that taking control of the bear reduces the base detection for that moment of time because you are effectively taking the bear away from its maximum efficiency of ASW operations. While under influence, his speed is reduced and coverage is smaller and more concentrated per request of the one controlling him. For that reason we need to be mindful how and when we control the bear, but this is truly a reflection of planning on the red side more so than anything, I’d say.

3.. Test case – RU side detection average:

I figure there is a good way to test the detection base based on ideal cruising speeds for the 688. But the actual cruising speed of the 688 depends on the person and their choice of tactics and efforts of optimized stealth.

I figure this test is simple. I’ll run a script to dive the 688 and resume ideal cruising speed and course in efforts to attempt to complete the mission. At time of detection, I’ll also record the range of RU subs w/ respect to the 688. The test will include 10 data points in SP and time compression, meaning I’ll run this map 10 times, more so than dive it 10 times and hopefully achieve the same outcome. What I need to see is the number of times the 688 is detected on avg and the likelihood that RU subs can intercept (2nd detection).

4.. Closing:

A.. As far as I’m concerned, until I’m convinced that CZ can’t offer any form of exploit, or if its effectiveness can be reduced, it has no place on this map as well as the entire set. To me using CZ jeopardizes the integrity of the map(any map rather) by giving all playables the location of each other once initial contact is made. It’s not just a matter of ‘when’ it’s also a matter of ‘if’. In saying this I’m keeping replay value in mind, and I don’t see that as a positive if each time I play a map w CZ combined with what I now know about the SSP, I can know exactly where the opponent is.

B.. In theory based on a more robust design, the bear is far more effective than before meaning that red side base detection is much effective than before. In light of all the changes I still don’t think we have meaningful data about the map performance because it seems that at the going rate we keep running into ‘roadblocks’ and making changes. I’m hoping the test case will shed some light on the map performance in a much faster time. At this point, I don’t see a need to test the 688 for any reason. Detection base target for both sides is around 50%.

That’s my two cents… the floor is open…

Thanks

[Molon Labe]

I think the CZ SSP was the best thing this scenario had going for it. A detection in a CZ means you get to transition from the "waiting for contact" phase and transition into the hunting phase. I suppose if 2nd CZ contacts don't occur here that makes the hunt a bit easer, but you still don't know your opponents course or speed and there is no guarantee that your opponent will cooperate and go in a straight line for you. There is also a serious risk of counterdetection as you attempt to position yourself to reacquire the target. The 30 mile issue is annoying, but it's all we've got in DW, and the realism problem it presents is somewhat offset by the knowledge that a sub skipper can discover what the CZ interval is by observing other contacts. I think the idea that there is an "exploit" here is a bit exaggerated, especially when you consider that you already have ROE in place that preclude an immediate shot on a contact.

The biggest problem you have in this scenario is that so much of it boils down to a crap shoot. Whether the 688I passes through the zone undetected is about 90% luck, 5% intuition, and 5% player competence. If and when that happens, you might get a decent <10nm knife fight that lasts 5 minutes. After you've geen staring at a blank sonar for 3 hours. CZ at least creates a possibility that there is going to be a contest as an Akula tries to get into position to make an intercept after a CZ detection. You still have to be lucky to get that CZ detection, but at least once that happens it gets really interesting for the next hour. And if you get to take (or are able to prevent) that shot at the end, at least you spent that hour or so earning it instead of waiting to get lucky.

[To be]

I have not read all of Molon's comment, so I apologize if I reiterate something he has said. I also believe that removing the CZ from this mission is a big mistake. Here is why:

The CZ allows red submarines a real chance to detect the 688 themselves, something that is very unlikely in SD. I would even go so far as to say detection of the 688 by the red side at all is unlikely. It also provides red with an small advantage (since they can run slower then the 688 can), to counter the fact that even if the 688 is successfully intercepted, it could still get through. This will help give the mission about a 50-50 chance of victory of each side, reducing it to a battle of skill. The CZ means that the 688 will have to work to get through, but that the Akulas must also work to intercept it, which is something we certainly want.

I have shown above why I believe the CZ is beneficial, but now I am going to go into why the CZ 'bug' is not so big an issue. Range is not the end solution of TMA, in order to get a solution to fire, or to intercept, you need 4 pieces of information about the target: Bearing, Course, Speed. and Range. While the CZ gives you bearing and range, it only lasts a very short amount of time, meaning you can't figure out course or speed. By the time you close that 30nm and regain contact, the 688 has moved considerably, and the data point you obtained earlier is useless, you will need to do a standard TMA solution.

Basically, I think that the CZ gives a huge benefit to the map, and this issue will only cause minor, if any, balance issues.

[suBB]

(notes)

Map status 110807

Subjects: SSP / base detection calculation / buoy data feed / AI engage / link promotion / run-time / 688 intel / closing


A.. SSP

The SSP has changed to CZ from SD to address issues in playability and fulfillment. CZ now offers the chance of 1st detection of blue force w/o relying on red AI to make 1st contact. CZ also gives 688 options to consider as well. I want to say this fix addresses said issues for both sides. CZ is working as it should at both 30nm and 60nm.

B.. base detection calculation

I figure the base detection for CZ under normal circumstances is how many times each time the map is loaded that human players will come into detection range of each other. The ideal target was 50% for both sides. Over a sample set of 12 MP sessions the base detection I came up with is 60% for both sides, where human intervention (choices made by players) will vary that over the base in real-time. However, base detection for SD is 1/3, ringing in at 30%, which is clearly unacceptable, as we figured in testing. Contributing factors to base detection are SSP type, size of op area, spawn, and possibly use of dynamic group especially combined with RSB. I’d prefer 50% but I figure there are other factors that may be beyond my reach to optimize it further into specification, yet the 10% margin can make up for that.

C.. Buoy data feed

Tests conclude that if the bear is over 30nm from a buoy that has made contact with the 688, the contact can't be processed and therefore the link can’t be promoted to allied forces. However, if the bear is less than 30nm (measured 26.7nm in testing) w/r to the same buoy, the contact will be processed and link will be promoted. Intentions of contact are based on current state of ROE. In testing once contact was made within range to process buoys, the bear intercepted the 688 and attempted to engage the 688 until it was destroyed (multiple attacks). In testing the bear lost contact with an evading 688. With buoys deployed, this tells me that the bear has about a 30nm footprint over the op area while in random search. I tried two different levels of altitude and the data link range was unaffected. AFAIK the data link range mirrors that of the helo and the FFG.

D.. AI engage

The problem we had in the design of conflicting interests is using this script revealed exact locations of opponents that were well outside sensor detection ranges, in this case red side submarines. For this reason I rather not use it for anything. Simply toggling ROE between opposing sides will accomplish the same thing w/o using this script.

E.. Link promotion

In testing, red forces needs to be mindful how and when they use AI for investigating links by means of link promotion. If a link is promoted by means of human influence over AI, it rallies all AI platforms to that area, including AI air and sea. What’s happening here is the AI aircraft (bear in particular) isn’t at maximum efficiency since the speed is reduced for a brief moment of time and the search is more concentrated over a smaller area. If the bear doesn’t make true contact, the search algorithm times out, and he resumes search by means of random search tactic and cruising speed of 400kts. For some reason, if the 688 is detected he will not track the contact even if he is told to using scripting.

F.. Run-time

Run-time has increased by :30, bringing the total time to 4:30. I asked around for 2nd opinions of the ‘usual suspects’ and they didn’t seem to have a problem with it. Also this will allow a little more breathing room in designs since I have more time to work with. However a run-time of 5 hours was a no-go.

G.. 688 intel

I added random intel for the 688 to occur anytime between T = 0 to T = 4.5 hours and based on the actions of the player he may or may not receive this intel. Intel will now include class of red maritime patrol and surface forces. I rather plot a solution to at least one of any of the air or surface platforms but that will cause more problems than necessary. I figure making mention of class is enough and how the player decides to use that for their benefit is up the player.

H.. Closing

With the new changes made to the map to make it playable while in the same time fulfilling for players, once again this has been an awesome learning experience that will carry over into the last two maps and definitely others to follow. At this point, Map A is a wrap. This map is pretty much finished. Minimal changes will convert this map into map 3 of the set, while the 2nd map will need an entirely new design. Also I’d like to revisit conflicting interests but this time with CZ, base detection calculation and increased run-time, but at the going rate that map currently uses SD, which I’m now not comfortable with.

A big thank you to the following for their support in this (hopefully final) phase of testing / optimization:

MaHuJa
Molon Labe
Oneshot
To Be
BobbyZero
Phil21
TLAM Strike
Sonoboy
Admbleeannoying
Foogleman

:up:

[suBB]

....guess I'll start chomping on the features list and the infastructure of the strike mission. Map C is a no brainer - just increased defenses, some scripting, re-vamp of radio comms triggers, minor stuff like that.

But as it is, I'd say its' already dynamic but I think the size of the op area, CZ 2nd zone, random intel for 688 & 30nm bear footprint increases the in-game dynamics that much more, meaning, based on the choices made by the 688 he could slip through buoys recently dropped just outside the bears' footprint, and either get picked up again later on by another buoy, MAD, found by a playable akula, or AGI, or both... or..

well..

I can't say exactly what will happen... really, anything can happen in one session.

[suBB]

Notes - 111307

Subject: Map C creation / Map A change-log

Map A:

complete, need docs & final decision.

Map B:

New design

Map C:

The following is a change-log that I think will convert Map A to Map C, finalized changes pending.

1.. add two udaloys & comms triggers to red playables if 688 is detected / possibly ELF / but need ru voice

2.. add two airborne helix / random search / speed and alt control to use dipping sonar / comms triggers to red playables

3.. set roe wartime both sides

4.. disable VLS tubes on 688, since they were used in map B (strike mission)

5.. mission run-time 4:30

6.. 688 needs to transit south to longitude

7.. RU playable subs will be pursuing the 688 / players will have options to intercept and / or cut off 688 based on intelligence

8.. udaloys w helix will approach from the south In efforts to try and corner the 688

9.. leave bear buoy design as is

10.. remove radio tasking for both sides

11.. replace tasking with XO voice and situation for both sides

12.. change 4:30 time-out as result if 688 does not make it to destination in time.

13.. change 688 win trigger to strike mission successful

14.. re-design 688 win triggering (1 agg, several E/D)

15.. re-design 688 time-out triggering (1 agg, several E/D)

16.. transit distance same as map A

17.. do not use engage scripts

18.. add stealth scripts for udaloys when 688 detected

19.. secure EMCON and have udaloys use passive sensors, but when 688 is detected by either udaloy, turn off EMCON and use active.

20.. change brief on all playables

21.. need RU XO voice.wav (custom audio)

22.. make helo dipping search more robust by adding speed and alt control triggering

23.. mention in 688 brief that VLS tubes are disabled

24.. set udaloy cruise speeds optimized for use of TA across the layer(check notes, if nothing, ask molon for washout data)

25.. remove helix from slava(POI = 0% and remove related triggers

26.. make bear already in area (already in random search) and not dispatched to area

27.. add sprinting triggers for AGI and udaloys / tie them to stealth scripts once detection made

28.. include RU XO voice.wav and XO voice.wav (custom audios w map)

Possibly more changes pending…

That’s all for now..


:up:

[suBB]

29.. In light of increased red defenses(two helix, two intel ships, two udaloys, two akula 2s, 1 bear deploying buoys and one command vessel) consider adding P3 to blue side to help in the escape of the 688. Make P3 to be dispatched to area & test red AA defenses.

[Molon Labe]

Udaloy TA entities

SS1TA Washout 23kts depth -23
SS1TAD1 Washout 18kts depth -183
SS1TAD2 Washout 12kts depth -305

Washout comparison:
Pel: 10kts (actual in game washout begins after 7 kts)
Pel II: 14kts (actual washout begins after 10 kts)

[suBB]

Udaloy TA entities

SS1TA Washout 23kts depth -23
SS1TAD1 Washout 18kts depth -183
SS1TAD2 Washout 12kts depth -305

Washout comparison:
Pel: 10kts (actual in game washout begins after 7 kts)
Pel II: 14kts (actual washout begins after 10 kts)
sorry, but i also need data on the kara also.

thanks

[Molon Labe]

Udaloy TA entities

SS1TA Washout 23kts depth -23
SS1TAD1 Washout 18kts depth -183
SS1TAD2 Washout 12kts depth -305

Washout comparison:
Pel: 10kts (actual in game washout begins after 7 kts)
Pel II: 14kts (actual washout begins after 10 kts)
sorry, but i also need data on the kara also.

thanks

It uses the same 3 sensor entitites.

[suBB]

30.. consider AI anti-ASM maneuvers for udaloy / kara to increase the chances of survival against ASM attacks / need testing

[Molon Labe]

30.. consider AI anti-ASM maneuvers for udaloy / kara to increase the chances of survival against ASM attacks / need testing

The Udaloy and Kara can handle themselves against 4-missile salvoes just fine.

[suBB]

Map A - Notes 120207

Removed – other scripts to try and allow for more variation in OIGD.

Added – UAV as means of providing real-time intel data to 688 but can’t control emission / RS tactic / consider other recon craft.

Added – appropriate comms triggers to 688 regarding UAV

Added – Random tasking update to 688 regarding UAV. Duration anytime up to 2 hours from time of spawn. / xo voice.wav

Added – su-27 interceptors flying CAP north of longitude over command vessel Slava. If UAV violates red airspace 27s will a-burn to obtain visual on promoted link of UAV. Once spotted flankers will engage w AA missiles & guns / violation of airspace will toggle red side ROE also.

Added – appropriate comms triggers to Akula 2s’ regarding UAV.

Added – UAV can be spotted by any red side AI platform and will radio Akula 2s’ when spotted. Chances of being spotted are random by means of RS tactic used for all AI platforms over the area.

Tweaked – 688 transiting distance to 50 nm from < 60nm to try and allow for more variation in OIGD.

Tweaked – arrival times of TU-142 bear, Helix, UAV, SU-27 to try and allow for more variation in OIGD.

Added – fuel reserves to all air platforms to make up for variation.

Fixed – helo stall after link promotion after red side permission to fire

And finally after a lot of work & testing……… (drum roll) :damn:


Fixed :rock:– TU-142 bear and Helix will now drop depth charges & use DC combined w torpedoes / Helix & Bear alt changed to allow use of DC / Bear & Helix will conserve DC ammo / Bear alt < 164 ft when commencing attack run / Bear speed reduced to minimum of 170 kts while in attack run, 400kts while intercepting contact & patrolling / use of ‘IsDetectionHeld” keeps bear & Helix in tracking mode until 688 is destroyed / Bear & Helix firing solution varies based on 688 noise & number of other detecting platforms & objects(buoys) present at time of detection relative to actual position of 688, more monitoring = more accurate / separate triggers and scripts for use of torpedo and depth charges for both Bear & Helix = event auto, refire 00:00, engage(DC / Torp) for 0 secs each.

Concern – UAV is emitting but very hard to pinpoint. Accurate solution requires a lot of time w/ one detecting platform. Faster, more accurate solutions occur if UAV is detected & observed by multiple neighboring platforms. Oppty is available for a human to make visual on UAV from peri or sail bridge then promote as link. Same applies for emitting Bear. Since both are hard to pinpoint quickly & accurately it shouldn’t be an issue. :hmm:

Other than adding comms triggers on contact made by the UAV & sent to the 688, I hope this should do it for beta release. :up:

[suBB]

notes: 012708

MAP A: Complete & Released as beta (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=129357)

MAP B: new design

MAP C: start project / WIP

(thinking back)

Refer to notes posted on 111307 for the list of changes that will convert MAP A to MAP C. Since the situation has escalated over the map set to the point where weapons are hot going into this scenario, you won't need ROE triggers for this map.

DO:

1.. Replace radio comms triggers w/ custom XO.wav for both sides explaining the situation to the commander. May need to find a custom gen_qtrs.wav for red side(check HFRO)

2.. Add red surface (Udaloy) intel update and do not deploy red side asw air assets, as they should already be in the area looking for the 688. Don't forget to turn on EMCON for all ai red side surface but turn off EMCON individually if / when either blue side is detected.

3.. Change win condition triggers, be sure to remove ROE violation triggers.

TEST:

1.. Red side AA capability against playable P-3.

2.. update as needed

[suBB]

Notes 022508 - beta 1 of 3 release

Bear speed feedback control - Fixed bear traveling 140kts when cleared to attack and 688 has been located. Now bear will fly at maximum speed towards last known contact, and within close range, bear ramps down to 140kt for better maneuverability. If bear overshoots 688, bear opens distance & ramps up to maximum speed to maneuver for another pass. While on another pass and closing, bear then ramps back down to 140kts and commence another attack run. Feedback control TRUE = while 688 isn’t destroyed && ROE weapons free granted from High Command.

Good catch, molon… two less things to fix in the rest of the map set. Thanks..:up:

Thanks for the run guys (molon, zypher) let’s do it again soon..:yep:

[suBB]

NOTES - 022708 - MAP C

Subject –- toggling EMCON on red side surface

You can’t toggle emcon off via scripting on any and all ru surface platforms capable of AA / ASW / ASUW. From experience, it can be done on the FFG only.

Spawning Ai with EMCON off is not an option; so consider a strategic alternative Involving EW or workaround.

[suBB]

UPDATE – MAP C - 030708

1.. At this point all of the outcome triggers are working 100% over LAN connection. Now entering the next phase of adding and coding AI Red surface. Include surface platforms as 3 SAGs over the entire area capable of ASW / AA / ASUW.

2.. design test case of FCR & SEARCH radar jamming using tu-142 bear against playable ffg, p3 & helo.

3.. Pending results of 2, consider comms network outages if key targets are destroyed..

[suBB]

Notes – map c – 031108

a.. red asw patrol platforms added, weapon systems coding finished and working.

b.. Blue force added consisting of ffg, 2 helos & p3. but for some weird reason the red Bear ignores designated tactic and tries (what appears to be) to either engage blue helos with it’s tail gun or make visual. :nope: I wonder if IFF setting has to do with anything :hmm: - look into that. Either rate he is breaking it’s assigned tactic and that shouldn’t be. Consider alternatives excluding the bear or find a way to fix it.

[suBB]

UPDATE – MAP C Status – 033108

I’ve been very busy lately…. So here is the scoop:

For tactical and strategic reasons that best fit the tone of the entire map set and responses of opposing sides, MAP C has basically turned into a parallel of rescue / standoff / escape.

The main outcome is to ensure safe arrival of the 688 back into friendly waters, and in the event that the 688 is intercepted and destroyed, technically the mission is over. However, in the 688s’ absence, opposing sides can still attempt to obliterate each other, resulting into a big H / K scenario, which is good because the same scenario gives players another outcomes to consider. You may want to make two more outcomes: 1 - checking against blue surface only excluding the helo and p3, and 2 - another outcome checking against red subs only.

The following are playables list, add / change log as of 033108:

A – playables list

Blue:

3 x FFG (2 assigned primary as ASUW w/ ASW capability, 1 assigned primary as typical)

2 x Helo (deployed from 1 FFG)

1 x 688

1 x P3

Red:

2 x Akula II (same hulls as previous)

1 x Akula Imp

Total:

10 playables

B – Add / Change Log:

ADD – Tasking for all playables now

ADD – Random spawn of ASUW FFGs

ADD – outcome triggers blue forces (excluding 688)

ADD – AI intel triggers informing red forces of detection of P3 / FFGs / helos

ADD – radar jamming emission from bear up to 60nm, affecting blue radar while inside jamming range, consider link radio outage also

ADD – red link radio outage if red command vessel is destroyed

ADD – deployable aircraft to re-establish red link radio comms in the event that command is destroyed.

CHECK – AI radio intel triggers informing red subs about 688

FIXED – P3 using RTB command

FIXED – random spawn of ‘some’ blue forces while in formation using dynamic group, thanks for the tip Molon

CHANGED – tactical deployment of red surface and air as such to maximize red defenses from all sides, both above and below the surface.

ADDED – AI weapons systems triggers for all red platforms. In testing I witnessed one of the AI ASW platforms fire a 9 salvo Sliex on a promoted link from over 22 nm, closed and not only firer another silex salvo, but fired UGSTs in combination :rock::up::huh:

ADDED - random spawn of P3 and airport. P3 will actually be deployed from the airport anywhere on blue side, and not spawned in thin air.

ADDED – AI bear and helix evasion triggers, if either one of these platforms are fired upon by any FFG, they will try to evade with speed and course changes.

that's all for now, see ya soon....

[suBB]

Alright, here is the deal….

1.. The ADD list has been reduced by three points, since what I have in mind doesn’t affect AI platforms in the same way as human playables are affected. So for that reason, jamming, link radio outage, and redundant aircraft won’t be considered.

2.. solved problem with suicide bear with a tactical workaround. The bear will not spawn or be present in the area, but will be dispatched along with interceptors and bombers. This really gives blue tons of options to consider, even a transiting 688, but those options will be left up to the players. Actually it gives options for both sides (playables)

3..I’m holding off on tasking until everything is in place and working 100%. But currently editing a rough for blue. Red still needs tasking.

4… ADDED random spawn for ffgs

5.. CHECKED ai intel radio triggers. They are present.

6.. ADDED random location of the red bomber base, as this will be key to blue forces. If blue can take care of this before bombers get off the ground, it would be a more pleasant day in the black sea for blue SAG.

7.. ADD random location of interceptor base, same as 6.

8.. ADDED burke class to 2x ASUW FFGs

9.. ADD - SAM sites for airbases and a CAP over the entire area.

10.. ADD – script to have red bombers hold fire until position, script isn’t needed for red interceptors.

Closing:

I think everything is pretty much downhill from here. A lot of work as been in the fact-finding process, test cases and re-org of both forces. But now that all of that is behind me, the rest is just a spit shine and polish and should have something playable soon. What this means is we are coming out of design and entering optimization, so: C will give us something to do with high head-count + A covers low head-count = something for us all to do(MP) regardless the situation.

Copy / paste sure comes in handy in a lot of respects.

The end game of C reminds me of the satisfaction / reward felt in A where i(688) successfully avoided contact of a vessel that almost punched my ticket and alerted my presence to neighboring akulas(other players) and somehow slipped right past a buoy from < 2.2nm, only to arrive at the destination unharmed with time to spare. aside from the favor factor... i love it when a plan comes together. :know:

Stay tuned…. :ping:

[suBB]

MAP C UPDATE 041908


So, what’s going on?

Well, all the items in the previous post are finished except for blue tasking, and all that is left to do is the following:

1.. ADD related tasking to both sides if the 688 is destroyed. This will result in generation of secondary objectives for both sides. Also don’t forget to change logic conditions to ‘if platform damage 688 != 100%’ to 688 mission complete Aggregate trigger.

2.. ADD mission outcome to related platforms. Secondary objective targets will be 3x Akulas for red and 3x FFGs for blue side.

3.. CHECK random intel regarding SAM site batteries sent to blue P3.

You would think that these final steps would be quick and easy to finish up? Well, there is more to it since I had to use dynamic group to generate random spawning of some platforms. Because of that, the amount of triggers required have increased in multiples, so there is still a lot of work left to do.

That’s all for now.

[suBB]

MAP C UPDATE 041908


So, what’s going on?

Well, all the items in the previous post are finished except for blue tasking, and all that is left to do is the following:

1.. ADD related tasking to both sides if the 688 is destroyed. This will result in generation of secondary objectives for both sides. Also don’t forget to change logic conditions to ‘if platform damage 688 != 100%’ to 688 mission complete Aggregate trigger.

2.. ADD mission outcome to related platforms. Secondary objective targets will be 3x Akulas for red and 3x FFGs for blue side.

3.. CHECK random intel regarding SAM site batteries sent to blue P3.

You would think that these final steps would be quick and easy to finish up? Well, there is more to it since I had to use dynamic group to generate random spawning of some platforms. Because of that, the amount of triggers required have increased in multiples, so there is still a lot of work left to do.

That’s all for now.
umm... quick idea

to mix things up even more, make secondary objectives random event for both sides :rock:

[suBB]

MAP C - UPDATE 041908


After over some 600 triggers later......

Map c design and editing is officially done this point :up:. Now I'm entering optimization and LAN testing to make sure some triggers are working as they are supposed to.

[suBB]

hello fans,

I know its been a long time, we haven't been in contact & no updates, but since we now have RA I'm going to attempt to resume mission design and generate scenarios for RA only based on my criteria for dynamic MP.

:woot:Thanks again RA team!!!! :woot:

Because of the mod I'm hoping the editing time will be reduced by 2/3 and with the presence of playables I'm expecting a big contribution to in-game dynamics based on actual test data.

will need to do some initial testing with the mod, AI testing and scenario planning. After these steps are complete, can probably move into scenario design.

Stay tuned!!! :D