Anyway to turn off the counter measures?

[SquidB]

Given the recent excellent mod I was wondering whether anyone has taken a look at making countermeasures unable to destroy torps?

Is this possible? It seems a bit crazy that they work like this currently :nope:

[Kapitan]

none as of yet

[Kapitan]

none as of yet

[LuftWolf]

I have played around with lowering the weapon effectiveness of CM's in the database to 0 and torpedos no longer explode on CM's. :yep:

However, I have yet to confirm that CM's still work in the sense of attracting torpedos. I believe they do... but more testing is required.

I believe, for CM's anyway, in the db editor, Weapon Effectiveness, is "Weapon Effectiveness [Against]" or something like that, as the Nixie is listed as having an 85% effectiveness, and I have heard that it is 85% effective in detonating torpedos in game.

Does anyone else know about this? It seems like something fairly straightforward. :hmm:

Edit: Changing the Weapon Effectiveness to 0 does indeed disable the countermeasures completely, as apparently the parameter is related to the chance the seeker of the weapon has to acquire the CM, not detonate on it. I think a doctrine change that specificially instructs the torpedo not go into terminal homing when it reaches the CM might do the trick, but I do not know how to code. :88)

[SquidB]

Well it seems that there may be hope to turn them off (the torp exploding aspect that is).

Hope someone can find a solution, and as always keep up the good work :up:

[jsteed]

The probability that the CM detonates a torp is hardcoded in the game engine. As I recall it is set to 50%. In other words, a coin toss as to whether the torp will explode. :down:

cheers, jsteed

[manwar]

I'm just curious as I don't know anything about it, but do the people that actually know what they're talking about agree with this? Again I'm not pooping in anyone's wheaties but do torps not detonate on CMs? If there are actual subject matter experts then I'll shutup, but coming from a WWII flight sim community where people swear on the bible that a spitfire can't do this or a 109 can't do that all coming from 23 yr olds just gets old. But I suspect that this subject may have some real world input. BTW great comunity here. It's refreshing.

Mac Out

[LuftWolf]

But jsteed, it's too coincidential that in the DB, their weapon effectiveness is listed as 50.

manwar, BTW, I am a 23 year old, and I swear a spitfire can't dive as fast as a 109 because of their carb as oppose to the 109's fuel injection. :up: ;) :-j :lol:

[manwar]

LOL, I meant no offense. I don't know crap about the spit or the 109's carb either. But just for fun is it okay if I call you a luftwhiner? I suck in both aircraft by the way

Mac Out

[SquidB]

As far as CM's exploding torps, I think the general consensus is that they cant in real life.

Infact I think i remember reading a readme where SA stated that they enabled this form game play reasons. Basically to help clear the sonar picture once their are torps in the water.

I think that most here at least are intrested in realism rather than making the game easier to play.

And the spit cant dive as fast as a 109 ;)

[Fish]

The probability that the CM detonates a torp is hardcoded in the game engine. As I recall it is set to 50%. In other words, a coin toss as to whether the torp will explode. :down:

cheers, jsteed
Are you sure about the 50 % jsteed? In multiplayer it seems to be almost 90 %.

[OKO]

say 100% ...
I never saw a torp not exploding on a CM when locked ...
all beta tester put it on priority list
I hope something will be changed here.

Jamie, if you hear us ... ;)

[Captain Nemo]

An on/off option to have CM's explode torpedoes would be good. That way it would satisfy those that crave realism and those (like me) who like the idea that the AI (and me) has some chance of evading an attack. I must admit though, CM's in DW seem to be far more effective than they were in SC.

Nemo

[LuftWolf]

I've noticed that torpedos will not explode on CM's if they are not at the correct depth. That is, if a torpedo is not able to maneover itself to go directly through the decoy, usually because they are a quite far apart depth wise, but not out of the seeker cone, then it will not explode when it reaches the decoy.

I'm not sure if this counts as a genuine case of torpedos not exploding on decoys, though.

But just for fun is it okay if I call you a luftwhiner?

Don't you mean Luftweiner?

[Bellman]

:) Interesting Luftwolf - I got to test that depth theory. If you are right then theres gold in them thar hills. ;) :lol:

[SquidB]

The option to turn off their anti torp behaviour is the idea solution,

As you said all parties would be happy...

I guess we will have to wait for this from SA

[LuftWolf]

Interesting Luftwolf - I got to test that depth theory. If you are right then theres gold in them thar hills.

Well, I was only able to find that out because I'm naughty, and play with the truth on sometimes, when I want to learn how situations actually resolve themselves in the game... it's the only way to learn what is actually going on verses what your sensors are telling you about a confusing situation. :-?

[LuftWolf]

I believe there is a doctrine-based solution to this problem.

In the torpedohoming doctrine, it could be possible to put something like this in (keep in mind I don't know how to code)

IF TgtClass $= "Weap" /since cm's are a weapon type/ THEN
SetCrs = (bearing of the CM, since they don't move)

IF tgtrng=0 THEN settactic Torpedo /to reset the torp after it goes through the CM/.

Or, basically:

IF TgtClass $= "Weap" /since cm's are a weapon type/ THEN
home on target, but don't enter terminalhoming.

Since the command that makes them blow up is the terminal homing tactic, as far as I know.

I'm way out of my depth here, but logically, if you can specificy target types and names in the doctrines, then you could give the torpedo instructions to do anything but blow up if the target it's homing on is a CM or a weapon-type (since there are no anti-torpedo torpedos).

[Amizaur]

Luftwolf - I though about exactly the same workaround - if CM is the target, break a lock few seconds before hit and activate it again behing the CM. Unfortunately if you activate it too close behind, it will detonate anyway ! Try this - disable torp one second before CM and enable it when it passed it - instant detonation.... But this could have nice side-effect - few seconds after passing CM the torpedo would be blind, so better chance that it doesn't acquire you if you are close behind. Have to be tested. But the best solution would be to get torps non-exploding on CM (maybe as an option ?) from Sonalysts in 1.02... Much more simple and official :-)

As for detonating on CM in 50% - I personally feel that they detonate in 100% on CMs, I have never seen a torpedo that HIT a CM and didn't detonated. When the depth separation is very large the torpedo may miss CM so no wonder that it doesn't detonate then :-).

[jsteed]

Hi Amizaur,

During beta tests, the CMs were 100% effective. SA then reduced it to 50%(Fish, Mantis bug #301). I shot many, many torps at CMs, (~300). What I found was that torps detonated just slightly more than 50%, but within statistical error.

The correct number should be ~0% since there is no physical reason why a torp should detonate. But SA will never change this value. They are too wedded to the fantasy items they have placed in the game for 'gameplay' reasons.

cheers, jsteed

[Amizaur]

Hi jsteed!

Are you sure that you are talking about DETONATING on CM, not about being deceived by it ? Countermeasures of course are not 100% effective, in editor we see that they have set efectiveness of 50%.
But IF they are decoyed and become homing on a CM THEN they detonate on them ALWAYS for me. I have not seen in DW such thing like torpedo running through a CM and searching for next target. If it's homing on CM, it hits it and detonates in 100% of cases.
In Sub Command it run through CM and continued searching.

[Jamie]

The correct number should be ~0% since there is no physical reason why a torp should detonate. But SA will never change this value. They are too wedded to the fantasy items they have placed in the game for 'gameplay' reasons.

John,

That's not necessary (nor is it true). We have listened to everyone's pretty clear "consensus" on the issue and will be addressing it.

Boy, with friends like John... :cry:

[SquidB]

Great news Jamie.

Now when is that patch coming ???? :-j

Lol only joking, good news :up:

[jsteed]

That's not necessary (nor is it true).

Hi Jamie,

Before throwing the noose over the tree, I recommend rereading the DW beta forum thread

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=42;t=000040;p=2#000 031

If doggedly sticking with wire guided 65cm torps and outer tubes filled with weapons isn't a case of gameplay uber alles, what would be? :-?

cheers, John