LuftWolf and Amizaur's Realism Mod Poll #11: Adv. Torpedoes

[LuftWolf]

The ability exists to make substantial changes to torpedo behavior.

My question is, how great is the desire to complicate gameplay?

Advanced Wire Control: the ability to change speed, acoustic mode, search pattern, and depth for wire guided torpedoes.

Sensor Modelling: Adding wakehoming capability to the UGST, TEST-71ME-NK, and USET-80 that can be selected at preset, removing the snake pattern from the ADCAP and replacing it with a single beam sweeping search sensor, also, making sure the torpedo sensors are properly sensitivity limited rather than hardcap limited.

Restricting the length of wire guided torpedoes to 10-13nm (depending the on the torpedo) would mean that subs would have to be very close to each other to engage in the standard wireguided torpedo play common now, but it would also make salvos at long range much less effective, as those SW players could can no longer send four torpedoes in from all directions at 16nm. Honestly, I think this is the biggest gameplay change, aside from the torpedo physics.

Advanced Torpedo Physics: Slower torpedoes run farther, non-electric torpedoes fired deeper run slower and shorter (about 10 kts slower at max depth 600m for UGST for example). This would substantially change the way the game is played in ASW, and make electric torpedoes like the MK50, USET-80/Yu-8, and TEST-71 much more important.

[Molon Labe]

This all sounds great to me, except for what you told me about the wire lengths. Since the proposed mod measures the distance from the launch point, a sub that is running will get a few extra miles of guidance, and a sub following the torp or resteering it at a nearby target will get ripped off.

I'd a bit worried about a 40 knot UGST at 600m trying to catch a 37 knot Seawolf, but with the advanced control mod, this might not be an issue that can't be dealt with tactically.

Is the UMP-1UE electric?

[LuftWolf]

Is the UMP-1UE electric?

Yes.

[LuftWolf]

This all sounds great to me, except for what you told me about the wire lengths. Since the proposed mod measures the distance from the launch point, a sub that is running will get a few extra miles of guidance, and a sub following the torp or resteering it at a nearby target will get ripped off

That is assuming the wire length is always the distance between the sub and the torpedo.

By that logic, the wire would have to retract when the torpedo closes on the launching sub.

Who here knows how the torpedo wire rigging works in a basic sense?

[Deathblow]

Sounds intriguing. I had no idea that electric torpedoes didn't suffer from speed reductions at depth... wonder why? :hmm:

The torpedo physics sound great, it would certainly make the torp attacks and evasion more intricate (with deep diving evasion more of a benifit for subs). As well as create an additional benifit for slow torp speeds. It would also make the torpedo performance of some "sprinter" torps like the Spearfish able to be modeled more accurately because its torp speeds are toted to be 70knots with a 12nm range, but can actually reach 25-30nm at slow speeds. Though tricking the AI to make the right setting is probably a completely different problem. Anyway, physics sound great.

Restricting the wire length sounds great. Is is possilbe to "speed restrict" it too? As in if the sub breaks 30knots the wire breaks? :up:

As far as removing the ADCAP snake. One thing that will complicate this is that the lack of a snaking movement is the only way a player knows that his torpedoes are homing on something. Otherwise we really can't tell what the torps are doing because they don't have wirefeedback as in RL (due to it being bugged toward a cheat). If the ADCAP doesn't snake it will probably cause more problems than worth it. :-?

As far advanced wire control. This could be tricky dependent on how cumbersome the command inputs would become.

[Deathblow]

Who here knows how the torpedo wire rigging works in a basic sense?

You mean ingame or in RL?

[LuftWolf]

Restricting the wire length sounds great. Is is possilbe to "speed restrict" it too? As in if the sub breaks 30knots the wire breaks? :up:


As far advanced wire control. This could be tricky dependent on how cumbersome the command inputs would become.


You cannot referrence objects in the doctrine other than targets... we've been through this.

The wire control has already been done by Amizaur. http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=48430&start=0

[LuftWolf]

[quote=Deathblow]
Restricting the wire length sounds great. Is is possilbe to "speed restrict" it too? As in if the sub breaks 30knots the wire breaks? :up:
quote]


You cannot referrence objects in the doctrine other than targets... we've been through this.


I might be able to do something silly with the sensors though... :-?

[Deathblow]

Restricting the wire length sounds great. Is is possilbe to "speed restrict" it too? As in if the sub breaks 30knots the wire breaks? :up:


As far advanced wire control. This could be tricky dependent on how cumbersome the command inputs would become.


You cannot referrence objects in the doctrine other than targets... we've been through this.

No, not thru the Torpedo or TorpHoming Doctrine, but through one of the "Sub" doctrines. If sub breaks speed x = close outer doors (approximately equivalent to a wire break). That is, if their is a way to command "close outer doors" in the first place... and who knows if its even possilbe to effect playerplatforms through a doctrine anyway... probably something that could only be a SCS patch, not a doctrine tweak.

EDIT: :hmm:

[LuftWolf]

No, not thru the Torpedo or TorpHoming Doctrine, but through one of the "Sub" doctrines. If sub breaks speed x = close outer doors (approximately equivalent to a wire break). That is, if their is a way to command "close outer doors" in the first place... and who knows if its even possilbe to effect playerplatforms through a doctrine anyway... probably something that could only be a SCS patch, not a doctrine tweak.

EDIT: :hmm:

Nope... we can't do this.

If there were a command to reference variables in the target doctrines from the platform doctrine this would be easy, but GetEntVar only works from the platform doctrine to the target doctrines.

[Wildcat]

All of the above sounds good, but I do wonder how torpedo depth is going to be controlled considering there is no interface for controlling torpedo depth in the sim once the torpedo has left the tube.

[LuftWolf]

As far advanced wire control. This could be tricky dependent on how cumbersome the command inputs would become.

The wire control has already been done by Amizaur. http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=48430&start=0

[WolfyBrandon]

Advanced Wire Control: the ability to change speed, acoustic mode, search pattern, and depth for wire guided torpedoes.

I think that would be really nice to have, just not sure if I like the enable / pre enable way to do it. If its the only way this could be done I could live with it. I tryed Amizaur's mod and it was kinda screwy for me, I think it was because I didnt give it the 1 second to let it refresh or something.

Sensor Modelling: Adding wakehoming capability to the UGST, TEST-71ME-NK, and USET-80 that can be selected at preset

Yes, I think adding that is a must, for both realism and gameplay! :up:

Removing the snake pattern from the ADCAP and replacing it with a single beam sweeping search sensor. Also, making sure the torpedo sensors are properly sensitivity limited rather than hardcap limited.

:down: I agree with deathblow. I don't think removing the snake pattern would be a good idea. It would make it confusing when the torp has a lock when it just runs in a straight line. About the sensitivity part, not exactually sure what that that is about... but "properly sensitivity limited" sounds better than "hardcap limited" to me.

Restricting the length of wire guided torpedoes to 10-13nm (depending the on the torpedo) would mean that subs would have to be very close to each other to engage in the standard wireguided torpedo play common now, but it would also make salvos at long range much less effective, as those SW players could can no longer send four torpedoes in from all directions at 16nm. Honestly, I think this is the biggest gameplay change, aside from the torpedo physics.

If realistic, I think this would be kind of neat to have with the inclusion of the Advanced Wire Control. Meaning you could only use its advanced wire features in short range combat. On the other hand the long range salvos would be a problem. The wire could be cut before you want to Enable it. Not sure if making the wire short range would be a good idea or not at this point since like you said there is tactics revolving around useing the wire at long range.

Advanced Torpedo Physics: Slower torpedoes run farther, non-electric torpedoes fired deeper run slower and shorter (about 10 kts slower at max depth 600m for UGST for example). This would substantially change the way the game is played in ASW, and make electric torpedoes like the MK50, USET-80/Yu-8, and TEST-71 much more important.

Slower torpedos should run farther. I don't have much expierence with the other type of torps so someone else can give their opinion on that though it sounds reasonable to me...

:hmm:
Wolfy

[Deathblow]

Question:

Will the 10-13nm limit for the wire generate a "lost the wire tube x" to the player whenever the wire is cut?

[Henson]

In response to the question about how the wire plays out from the tube IRL, it works as follows. The torpedo itself has a certain amount of guidance wire internal to the weapon, and inside the tube is a guidance wire dispenser with about 1/2 the amount of what is in the torpedo fuel tank.

After launch, once the wire achieves 'equilibrium' the torpedo will feed out as much wire as necessary to account for its own motion, and the wire dispenser in the tube will pay out enough to account for O/S motion. In theory the center of the wire is stationary. The reason there is less wire in the tube than there is in the torpedo fuel tank is the fact that the torpedo moves at roughly twice the speed O/S does.

[OKO]

This all sounds great to me, except for what you told me about the wire lengths. Since the proposed mod measures the distance from the launch point, a sub that is running will get a few extra miles of guidance, and a sub following the torp or resteering it at a nearby target will get ripped off.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I heard that wire is not only unrolling from the torpedo, but also from the submarine, to avoid the wire to be cut too easily with sub manoeuvers.
The 10-13 miles of torpedo wire shouldn't be affected, in this case, by sub runs.

All modifications mentionned looks fantastic !

But anyone could give an explanation why non electrical torps run slower at high depth, please ?

[Molon Labe]

As far as removing the ADCAP snake. One thing that will complicate this is that the lack of a snaking movement is the only way a player knows that his torpedoes are homing on something. Otherwise we really can't tell what the torps are doing because they don't have wirefeedback as in RL (due to it being bugged toward a cheat). If the ADCAP doesn't snake it will probably cause more problems than worth it. :-?

As far advanced wire control. This could be tricky dependent on how cumbersome the command inputs would become.

SCX removed the snake, and it was still easy to tell if your torp picked up something...because it turned. (and even if the target was on the exact same heading you can still check to see if its acquired by ordering the torp to turn; if it doesn't, it has a target.

[Molon Labe]

In response to the question about how the wire plays out from the tube IRL, it works as follows. The torpedo itself has a certain amount of guidance wire internal to the weapon, and inside the tube is a guidance wire dispenser with about 1/2 the amount of what is in the torpedo fuel tank.

After launch, once the wire achieves 'equilibrium' the torpedo will feed out as much wire as necessary to account for its own motion, and the wire dispenser in the tube will pay out enough to account for O/S motion. In theory the center of the wire is stationary. The reason there is less wire in the tube than there is in the torpedo fuel tank is the fact that the torpedo moves at roughly twice the speed O/S does.

Thanks for the info. You seem to know how this works better than anyone else so far.

Do you think that it's a fair approximation of reality to model the wire break as occuring after an absolute distance traveled by the torpedo, without accounting for the relative distance between the sub and torp?

[SeaQueen]

As far as removing the ADCAP snake. One thing that will complicate this is that the lack of a snaking movement is the only way a player knows that his torpedoes are homing on something. Otherwise we really can't tell what the torps are doing because they don't have wirefeedback as in RL (due to it being bugged toward a cheat). If the ADCAP doesn't snake it will probably cause more problems than worth it. :-?

Is it possible to have the snake search optional? That way, if you want a straight-running (therefore faster) torpedo, you can use it and a slower torpedo with a greater area searched, you have that too? The more options you have with torpedoes, the better, I think. It makes them much more interesting to experiment with tactically. I'd like being able to switch between a snake searcher, a circle searcher, and a straight runner.

[WolfyBrandon]

Is it possible to have the snake search optional? That way, if you want a straight-running (therefore faster) torpedo, you can use it and a slower torpedo with a greater area searched, you have that too? The more options you have with torpedoes, the better, I think. It makes them much more interesting to experiment with tactically. I'd like being able to switch between a snake searcher, a circle searcher, and a straight runner.

I agree, would be nice to have both optional. :up:

Wolfy

[Bellman]

I voted for ''Advanced Wire Control: the ability to change speed, acoustic mode, search pattern,
and depth for wire guided torpedoes. ' Those of us wanting the changed 'search pattern' element could well
have put the weight of voting in Advanced Wire Control. But all the main feature headings are highly desirable. :|\

I hope polling for a choice doesnt mean that some of the proposed features are not able to coexist ? :hmm:
Must a choice be made from a 'menu' or can we be greedy and say '' Bring it all on.'' Improved physics and advanced
wire control are not mutualy exclusive are they ? Both would be fantastic ! :yep:

A truly exciting prospect !

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I'd like to have all of them, but whatever you add, I think the important thing is that it WORKS.

People want improvements, but they'd hate them if the improvement had too many quirks. See v1.03's new hydrodynamic model to see that in action.

[Molon Labe]

I'd like to have all of them, but whatever you add, I think the important thing is that it WORKS.

People want improvements, but they'd hate them if the improvement had too many quirks. See v1.03's new hydrodynamic model to see that in action.

Exactly. :yep:

[Deathblow]

SCX removed the snake, and it was still easy to tell if your torp picked up something...because it turned. (and even if the target was on the exact same heading you can still check to see if its acquired by ordering the torp to turn; if it doesn't, it has a target.

Doesn't seem worth it really, what's the real benifit? Adds a bit more micromanagement to decipher the state of ones own torps without much gained from the changes.

[Molon Labe]

Increased effective range and closing speed, probably realism as well.

[LuftWolf]

Couple of quick points:

1) Has LWAMI ever contained any halfassed garbage? :hmm: No. So of course whatever is in the mod will work, that's my problem. You guys just tell me what would be ideal, and we'll give you the best we can do. :up:

2) Yes, theoretically I can have all the modes on the ADCAP you want, but of course has to be balanced out with playability. Yes, I can have a mode on the ADCAP where it uses its sonar in single beam mode to give the sensor some extra power and a mode where it uses its full frontal aspect homing sonar on a snake pattern for extra area coverage, as well as a circle reattack, both automatic and wire controlled. The only thing I can't see a way to do at this point is under-keel detonations causing extra damage, because of the way the damage model is limited in DW (farther away means less damage, even if that "farther away" is accounted for in depth under keel), but I'll seriously look into it.

Keep in mind, doing advanced features on a single weapon takes a great deal of time. So we'll see what we can accomplish.

Now for the GREAT news!

I have found out a way to reference the launching platform of a wireguided torpedo using some trick sensor and doctrine finagleing.

The long and the short of it is that I have the full status-referencing capabilities of the doctrines now to determine if wires will break or not (I can even introduce small random factors so players can't make exact calculations on when or when their wires will break, only know generally). :rock:

Ok, so now the question is, when should torpedo wires break? :hmm:

Right now I am working with a set range as mentioned above as well as having the doctrine monitor closeing and opening speed... if the opening speed gets too high (around 70 kts), the wire will break.

Ok, everyone who has ever wanted to contribute to a discussion of when wires should break in DW, with the idea that this will actually be implimented sometime in the next 20 years, this is your chance. Let me have it... now! :up:

Cheers,
David

PS Deathblow, no I don't see how I will be able to have the audio warning, since that is coded in the interface .dll's. Also, just for fair warning, you will probably still be able to shutdown the torpedo even after the wire has been cut, but all the other commands will be disabled... I will try hard to get rid of this, but no promises. All in all, I think the advantage of doing this far outweighs those two concerns.

PPS Thank you Henson for explaning how torpedo wires are spooled and out rigged.

[Deathblow]

I have found out a way to reference the launching platform of a wireguided torpedo using some trick sensor and doctrine finagleing.

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

You made a sensor that will detect the launching platform and recognize it as such?! Please tell, how did you accomplish this?

[Henson]

In response to the question about how the wire plays out from the tube IRL, it works as follows. The torpedo itself has a certain amount of guidance wire internal to the weapon, and inside the tube is a guidance wire dispenser with about 1/2 the amount of what is in the torpedo fuel tank.

After launch, once the wire achieves 'equilibrium' the torpedo will feed out as much wire as necessary to account for its own motion, and the wire dispenser in the tube will pay out enough to account for O/S motion. In theory the center of the wire is stationary. The reason there is less wire in the tube than there is in the torpedo fuel tank is the fact that the torpedo moves at roughly twice the speed O/S does.

Thanks for the info. You seem to know how this works better than anyone else so far.

Do you think that it's a fair approximation of reality to model the wire break as occuring after an absolute distance traveled by the torpedo, without accounting for the relative distance between the sub and torp?
I just spent a week teaching ADCAPs to a boat that has been shooting old MK48s up until now. You just happened to catch me at a good time.

I would say that the model you suggested is closest to reality. It doesn't neccessarily matter how far apart the weapon and O/S are. If the distance traveled by the two is longer than the wire it will probably break. Of course there's a little bit of play in that, and wires can (and do) break before that point. Another thing that causes wire loss is that the signal degrades to the point where there is no more good electrical continuity. We actually track the amount of electricity running across an open guidance wire in the fire control system. We used to have a hell of a problem with the wire getting caught in the screw as well, but that has been fixed for years.

Unfortunately I don't think I can tell you how much wire there is. I'll check on it, but better safe then sorry. Lets just say that with current realities and tactics, you should lose the wire becuse of a detonation well before you lose it because you ran the weapon too long.

[Molon Labe]

Thanks for the reply.

About the total distance travelled by both the ship and torp mattering more than the distance between the ship and torp...does that hold true if the boat is travelling in the same direction as the weapon, and what if the torp was turned around to reattack a target and is closing range with the launching boat instead of opening?

Also, since we might be getting other wire breaks modeled, is there a limit to the turn rate, ship speed, or relative course that can't be exceeded without cutting the wire? (probably asking for too much, but I thought I'd try)

[LuftWolf]

I gave the wireguided torpedoes an all-aspect visual sensor that is capable of tracking everything within about 15nm.

When the torpedo is fired, it detects the launching platform immediately and a special doctrine is called which tracks the launching platform. A variable switch and numerous parameter checks are implimented to make sure that special target doctrine gets assigned ONLY to the launching platform (this is done reliably). Also, the rest of the doctrine has been altered to make absolutely sure the input from the visual sensor is ignored completely so it doesn't interfere with other functions of the torpedo.

The special doctrine uses normal doctrine commands to monitor the status of the launching platform relative to the torpedo. When the conditions that allow the wire to break are reached, the monitoring doctrine sends a command to the main torpedo doctrine to change a variable from 0 to 1, and the wire commands are disabled.

This last part of the mechanism is the key... being able to have a target doctrine that monitors the launching platform and can also refer back to the main torpedo doctrine and change a variable. The last part is done with the SetEntVar command, which is not used in any stock SC, SCX, or stock DW doctrines that I can find... its only a minor note in a document relating to the SC doctrine interpreter published by SCS and edited by jsteed, and it took AGES to figure out how it worked in DW.

But it works now, and all this is quite reliable. :up:

So the question remains: when should torpedo wires break in DW? :hmm:

PS Henson... the info that Amizaur has places the length of the ADCAP wires at 10nm... I take it from what you said, that is too short. Perhaps that data he had was for a single spool... meaning the total range might by closer to 20nm? I know you might not be able to answer that directly, but is 10nm *way* too short?

How the heck thin is that wire anyway??? :huh:

[Bellman]

Would it be possible to have range dependent variable chances of failure ? Egs. 10 - 12 nm 50 % , 13 - 15 nm 75% , 16 nm - 100%

In addition we are warned that wires brake when ownship turns more than 90 deg from torps bearing.
This rarely, if ever, happens but could this be implemented ?

[LuftWolf]

Based on the idea that I don't think its possible for more than 10nm of wire to fit into a the fuel-tank of a torpedo whose total dimensions are 5.79m by .5334m and in light of the data that there is a spool in the submarine as well, here is the current plan:

The torpedo wire length will be limited in two ways:

1) If the true run of the torpedo is over 10nm, the wire will disable. This is simulating the 10nm spool in the torpedo itself.

2) If the launching platform exceeds a total distance of 15nm from the torpedo, regardless of the distance the torpedo has run or if the opening speed of the torpedo and the launching platform is greater than 60+/-5kts (random), with ownship speed contributing a maximum of 20kts to that total (meaning you could fire a torpedo at 35kts and be reasonably sure you can run around all day without breaking the wire), the wire will also break.

Of course the actual distances and speeds can be varied, but with both truerun and ownship conditions, our options for breaking wires are virtually unlimited.

We can do more or less whatever would be ideal.

[LuftWolf]

Would it be possible to have range dependent variable chances of failure ? Egs. 10 - 12 nm 50 % , 13 - 15 nm 75% , 16 nm - 100%

Yes. This could simulate conductivity loss, which is probably variable in real life based on the specific conditions of the ocean, but random based on range would be good enough in game, since range is the only thing we really care about in gameplay terms (as opposed to water temp and salinity).


In addition we are warned that wires brake when ownship turns more than 90 deg from torps bearing.
This rarely, if ever, happens but could this be implemented ?

Possibly... I can reference ownship course and bearing to the torpedo, as well as ownships angle off the bow of the torpedo. I should have enough tools to do the math.

[Bellman]

The 90 deg + breakage (possibility ?) would lead to some tight calls between cut 'em loose and 'scoot and run'
or finesse a turn and 'stay in touch'. Decisions which could increase reality and gameplay.

Could the angle calculation be referenced the bearing from sub to torps actual position, rather than launch bearing ?
Obvious in reality (but in game ?) The tactical possibilities then are extended - egs the offset launch which is resteered.

Edit. Posts crossed LW - I think you answered my last para !

[LuftWolf]

Just so you guys know what has already been done:

Amizaur has completed the core of the Advanced Torpedo Control (ATC) and Wire Break Mod and the Advanced Torpedo Physics, as well as started the work of creating unique doctrines for each playable torpedo.

The work that still needs to be done is the Advanced Sensor Modelling, the integration of the ATC with the Advanced Torpedo Physics, finishing each unique torpedo doctrine and integrating everything with the database.

And that's just the torpedoes... check out the first post in this thread for everything we are working on, for what is now, LWAMI 4.00! :up: :rock: :arrgh!:

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=406982#406982

Cheers,
David

[Henson]

I may be a little late here, but 10nm (20kyd) is about right. We measure the length of the wire in feet, not yards, if that tells you something. We also don't worry too much about running out of wire...the in-game tactics of running a torpedo out for several miles is, IMO, unrealistic in today's tactical environment. Submarine battles are turning into knife fights, and while a torpedo at low speed will run forever, at high speed it eats up gas pretty fast.

A wire-guided torpedo runs a little bit differently at the very beginning (pre-enable) than an AMO (dumb, straight-run) weapon. It does something called a 'wire-clearance maneuver,' one of the effects of which is to allow the guidance wire to achieve that equilibrium I referred to earlier. That maneuver separates the motion of the torpedo from that of ownship, and has the added benefit of separating the wire from the screw. I don't see reason to model this in-game any further than what has already been recommended however.

Are there limits on O/S maneuvers while launching weapons? YES, but they vary by platform, and are so extreme that it's unlikely you would ever reach those tolerances. One of the main concerns, getting the wire wrapped around the screw in a turn, has been fixed by the wire-clearance maneuver. That limits some platforms in speed at time of launch, but not nearly enough to be a problem. If you're launching weapons at that speed you have bigger problems than losing a guidance wire.

The main limitations in course changes come from turning across the wire at high speed and catching it in the screw (note that this doesn't happen if you turn into it instead), and limitations that are placed upon the weapon before it enables designed to keep it from acquiring ownship (look to the experience of Dick O'Kane to find the reasons for that). There is a limitation on how far 'over-the-shoulder' we can launch an ADCAP because of that, but once again, it's a very small area that we're talking about, and not likely to ever be a concern. If it is a concern it's always possible to steer anyway, and is not very tactically limiting.

[LuftWolf]

Pure Gold.

Thank you Henson. :up:

Cheers,
David

[Deathblow]

That's some pretty ingenious doctrine fixing LW. Wow. :|\

@Henson: Ditto what LW said, its interesting to know whats reality versus Hollywood. I have to admit that my own perceptions of wire breaks were guided mostly by Tom Clancy books :-? :oops:

Sounds like sub speed breaks aren't really the issue they seemed to be...

On a semi-realted note...what if... an ADCAPs snake is removed and the torp is near the limits of its wire. How does one know whether the torp is not responding to course changes because its wire has already broken or rather because its homing into the target... the only way that comes to mind is to temporarily preenable the torp to see if it actually turns off... anyone other way that one can think of?

[Amizaur]

I gave the wireguided torpedoes an all-aspect visual sensor that is capable of tracking everything within about 15nm.

When the torpedo is fired, it detects the launching platform immediately and a special doctrine is called which tracks the launching platform.

Brilliant idea ! :up: Little complicated, but I'm afraid all the simple options are already used...

I'll try to answer some questions too tomorrow, about how it works and what do I know about torp wires and depth related slow-down. The 10nm of wire for ADCAP (20k yards) comes from various sources, 10nm in the torp and half of that on the spool like it was said already. I heard that before ADCAP, the Mk-48 had only in-torp wire (and less than 10nm) and launching subs were restricted in movement after torp launch because the wire would be broken if they went too fast or too far from launching point... the hundreds and thousands feets of wire in the water have to make very high drag if something tried to move (pull) it through the water, and would just break. So forget about summing up those two lengths. Wire in torpedo is for torpedo movement, wire on the spool is for sub movement in general, well at least at ranges greater than few hundreds yards. The wire can't be too thick and strong and as I said you just can't pull and drag a few thousands yards of wire through the water without breaking it... you can only move if you are losening free wire from a spool at your end of the wire. It's like walking few hundred meters on a field laying a thin wire or thread on the ground, and then trying to run without unrolling some more thread free - it would just break...

Have no idea what practical limitations are on launching platform to prevent wire breaking. I only heard that wire breaking was a major problem years ago (Mk-37 times for sure, maybe Mk-48 time?), but now it's resolved and chance of wire break is very small, even if launching sub is maneuvering... but... I think (or feel) that 180deg turn and all ahead flank could break a wire even today, with spool in the tube, and, well, exactly 180deg turn and run would cause the wire to get into screw I think...? There must be some forbidden maneuvers.

So I think that torpedo wire should break when torpedo runs more than 10nm from the launch point, or sub moves more than 5nm from the launch point, and personally I think that when sub is making some really extreme maneuvers too (high chance of breaking if turning close to 180deg or going flank or something like that). The last condition (ownship maneuvers) recquires that additional sensor and doctrine Luftwolf has made... I'll write more tomorrow, it's 1.42 AM here :-)

P.S. I liked very much the comment that combat between modern subs is like "knife fight" at close ranges :yep: , it's exactly what I thought and said many times after learning some about modern sub's noise levels, sensor limitations, real life tactics and scenarios. Yes, I know it's unplayable... but this is what happens when very modern subs can detect each other from as close as few hundreds yards, or few thousands at best... Then no wonder that 10nm of wire is more than enaugh, and that small range of many rest-of-the-world torpedos is usually enaugh too... Knife fight... usually doesn't matter than your knife is longer than mine ;-)

[Amizaur]

...

[Molon Labe]

I'm a bit bothered that the wire would break at the same time whether the sub was moving in the same direction as the torp as it would if it was moving directly away. There needs to be a way to account for relative motion for this to feel right.

Also, if we are supposed to lose the wire due to detonation and not have to worry about losing a 10nm wire, then we need to re-evalutate sensor performance and/or NLs.

[Deathblow]

Also, if we are supposed to lose the wire due to detonation and not have to worry about losing a 10nm wire, then we need to re-evalutate sensor performance and/or NLs.

The ongoing "gameplay versus realism" debate once again looms. Should this be modeled as a "game" with fudges to promote action and provocation, or as a "simulation" to indeer the realism of real life operations. Although these two ideas are not diametrically opposed, they are not always mutually achieveable... and the desirable balance totally dependent on the subjective preferences of the user...

... while some die hard fans want only the most realistic and unyielding representation of RL at their fingertips, even at the expense of larger periods of uneventful gametime and asymetrical gameplay, others would hedge these factors for faster avenues toward firefights and increased visibility for greater propensity for "gunslinging" matches...

all completely subjective to what each players personal preference is. Something to keep in mind if the SL are to be tweaked once again.

[Doc Savage]

Hate to be the only one to ask but, is it posible to mod either the -27 ASW or the Stallion to drop a torpedo in snake pattern rather than circle?

[Amizaur]

Hate to be the only one to ask but, is it posible to mod either the -27 ASW or the Stallion to drop a torpedo in snake pattern rather than circle?

Of course it is, but it would be always snake or always circle... hm making both patterns possible to chose is little hard, it could for example base on heading (even heading number - circle, uneven - snake) or something like that, but this would confuse players that don't read user manuals ;)
And you still could not chose direction of snake after torpedo enters water (only same sa missile is possible, or other fixed setting) so the enemy would know launching sub bearing by observing torpedo course...

I'm a bit bothered that the wire would break at the same time whether the sub was moving in the same direction as the torp as it would if it was moving directly away. There needs to be a way to account for relative motion for this to feel right.

Hm I though I answered that - you can't just drag the long wire through the water, it would break. That's why second spool of wire in torpedo tube was needed. If you could just drag the wire then one spool would be enough, just like in Mk-48... But second spool for sub movement was added. And even common sense says that you can't drag few MILES of thin wire left in the water or laying on the bottom without breaking it... So, with ADCAP it doesn't matter if the sub is moving in the same or the opposite direction, the "center" point of the wire of the wire stays in the water at or close to launch point and both ends are unrolling from spools (one on torpedo, one on the sub). If EITHER of the spools ends, the wire is broken. So if the sub moves more than 5nm in any direction or torpedo moves more than 10nm in any direction.

The UGST is said to have 25km (13.5nm) of wire, but I don't know if it's all in torpedo or how the length is divided between torpedo spool and torpedo tube spool. Anyone knows ? In comparison, the ADCAP would have total of 15nm of wire (10nm in torpedo, 5nm or so on torpedo tube spool). But UGST is much longer torp than ADCAP (7.2m for UGST and only 5.8m for ADCAP) so it's probably possible to fit whole 13.5nm of wire into the torpedo... but that would leave sub with limited maneuver so probably similar two spool system is used on UGST ? It was said somwhere that full length of UGST + "wire coil" is about 8.2m... On a picture of TEST-71 two wire reels are described - internal and external. So UGST most probably use same system too... yes, I just found info that UGST has internal fuel tank wire reel and external left-behing (although described as "towed")wire reel. Even more interesting UGST info:

telecontrol wire, km: torpedo guidance wire reel - up to 25
towed guidance wire reel - up to 5

So 25km (13.5nm) wire in the torpedo and 5km (2.7nm) of wire in torpedo tube. So guided torpedo run 13.5nm, free sub movement after launch 2.7nm. Seems UGST has advantage over ADCAP in guidance wire length :-), probably because it's much longer torp.

Two PDFs about russian torps, can't find them on the net currently:

http://members.chello.pl/m.ostrowski7/files/Russian%20Torpedos%20-%20oferta.pdf

http://members.chello.pl/m.ostrowski7/files/Russian_Antisubmarine_Rockets.pdf

fixed version of ATC mod demo:

http://members.chello.pl/m.ostrowski7/files/DW_AdvTorpControlBeta101.zip

Torpedo doctrine used in LwAmi 3.x mod merged with ATC mod (so you could try replacing normal LwAmi Torpedo doctrine with it) - but not tested at all !!! so I'm sorry if it doesn't work... but it should :-)

http://members.chello.pl/m.ostrowski7/files/LWAmi_3.x_torp_doctrine_with_ATC_beta.zip

[Molon Labe]

Also, if we are supposed to lose the wire due to detonation and not have to worry about losing a 10nm wire, then we need to re-evalutate sensor performance and/or NLs.

The ongoing "gameplay versus realism" debate once again looms. Should this be modeled as a "game" with fudges to promote action and provocation, or as a "simulation" to indeer the realism of real life operations. Although these two ideas are not diametrically opposed, they are not always mutually achieveable... and the desirable balance totally dependent on the subjective preferences of the user...

... while some die hard fans want only the most realistic and unyielding representation of RL at their fingertips, even at the expense of larger periods of uneventful gametime and asymetrical gameplay, others would hedge these factors for faster avenues toward firefights and increased visibility for greater propensity for "gunslinging" matches...

all completely subjective to what each players personal preference is. Something to keep in mind if the SL are to be tweaked once again.

As is the possibility of new opportunities being opened. We do have an ongoing balance issue, which at times is so serious as to make a lot of scenarios that should be fun become unwinnable. A lot of scenarios that I thought about writing I've had to scrap because there was just no way they could work in DW how it is today.

Henson's contributions suggest that there is a realism problem contributing to that balance issue. A calculated tweak would likely advance realism, balance, and fun gameplay all at the same time.

[Molon Labe]

Am: There's nothing to drag if the torp and sub are moving in the same direction. You'd just be leaving slack wire behind you, when you could be paying it out in front at a later time with the torp further downrange.

I suppose that as the courses separate, dragging slowly becomes an issue and at some unknown threshold it becomes too much. It's not knowing what the tolerance is here that bothers me. I can only say for sure that the way you're doing it would cause a problem when the courses are exactly the same, though, so hopefully the imprecision here is very small.

I just hope you take what Henson said about being more likely to lose the wire to a detonation to a lack of wire to heart. If we end up running out of wire more often than not, this is going to have a huge negative effect on gameplay. If you think stock DW was a frag fest because people were worried about losing torps on decoys, just think about how bad it's going to be when they can't steer a torp on target at range or re-attack after getting spoofed! 6-8 torp spreads might become the rule rather than the exception. Hell, I might even shoot 4 instead of 2.

[LuftWolf]

A couple of points Molon:

1) If the motion of the wire compared to the water around it along its entire length is anything other than a very small amount, the wire will break. So even if there is plenty of slack, any tension on either side of the wire will break it due to the water tension, rather than the stretching of the wire.

2) You aren't looking at this in its full context. With the advanced torpedo physics, it'll be nearly impossible to score a kill in deep water outside of wire range. Also, reattack features are probably going to be included as automatic features on the wireguided torpedoes.

In this cases, the changes will be quite significant, so it's hard to say what the exact consequences will be. Lets just say, a playing willing to wait for a good solution will have a big advantage. In this day of DW, all a player needs to do is fire 4 torpedos in the general direction of his opponent, wait until they start running, and then triangulate with UUV and TA and its over.

Now, we face the real possibility of having solutions on opponents... and not just solutions, but solutions that let you know where he is, but you still can't have a decent chance of killing him. So you stalk!

Now we are closing in on real submarine tactics.

[porphy]

Now, we face the real possibility of having solutions on opponents... and not just solutions, but solutions that let you know where he is, but you still can't have a decent chance of killing him. So you stalk!


That sounds really promising Luftwolf and Amizaur. Your work keep DW breathing fresh air. How will the ai handle the new torp physics?

Cheers Porphy

[Deathblow]

What will be interesting is whenever a sub dives deep the loss of torp speed may be just what the sub needs to edge out a successful evasion. It will make things pretty interesting. I know that I'll definately be evading at 1200 feet from now on! :ping:

Also, reattack features are probably going to be included as automatic features on the wireguided torpedoes
? What'd you mean? You mean that after passing a CM the torp automatically changes heading by 90degrees in expectation of finding a fleeing target? But perhaps the target evaded straight forward... or vice versa. This could get tricky... :hmm:

Two PDFs about russian torps, can't find them on the net currently:

http://members.chello.pl/m.ostrowski7/files/Russian%20Torpedos%20-%20oferta.pdf

http://members.chello.pl/m.ostrowski7/files/Russian_Antisubmarine_Rockets.pdf
Great links! Thanks. :up:

But anyone could give an explanation why non electrical torps run slower at high depth, please ?
I'm still wondering about this as well...... I'm going to throw out a *completely* wild guess as to why this would be the case... what if...

... it has something to do with the relationship between torque and rpm. In nonelectric torps torque and rpm are dependent on each other and as the torque requirements of the screw increase with depth to a certain point the rpm start to decrease, probably a result of the piston physics. But in a electric motor perhaps torque can be increased without neccessarily decreasing the rpm of the screw...

... that was a completely wild guess not based on anything I've read at all... but seems to make sense... maybe... perhaps... possibly? :shifty:

[LuftWolf]

That sounds really promising Luftwolf and Amizaur. Your work keep DW breathing fresh air. How will the ai handle the new torp physics?

Cheers Porphy

Ah! Now here is the rub.

As it is now, I have to make separate versions of the AI and human torpedoes, like was done in SCX, only much more extreme a difference.

I wish I could tell you, but that is still being designed. :|\

The biggest problem is making the AI smart enough to not fire a torpedo at max speed at a target near max range. I know a few ways I could do it, but I want to have the AI be more lethal, so I'm still thinking about how crazy I want to get with multiple AI fire modes. The good news is that the AI does indeed set a different preset depth for torpedoes when it fires against submerged targets as opposed to surface ships, so based on that I should be able to have at least two modes.

At worst, I'll just have the AI torpedoes limited in the database to the max range at max speed, and the AI will always fire the torpedoes using the short range and max speed setting. But that would be the easy cop-out way of doing it. :-?

In terms of how the AI would handle the decrease of speed at depth, my assumption is that even humans wouldn't fire torpedoes to runout any deeper than they have to (just under the layer). The torpedoes would only go to a deep depth if they were homing on a deep target, so it shouldn't affect the AI any more than human players, even without any changes.

[Molon Labe]

A couple of points Molon:

1) If the motion of the wire compared to the water around it along its entire length is anything other than a very small amount, the wire will break. So even if there is plenty of slack, any tension on either side of the wire will break it due to the water tension, rather than the stretching of the wire.

2) You aren't looking at this in its full context. With the advanced torpedo physics, it'll be nearly impossible to score a kill in deep water outside of wire range. Also, reattack features are probably going to be included as automatic features on the wireguided torpedoes.

In this cases, the changes will be quite significant, so it's hard to say what the exact consequences will be. Lets just say, a playing willing to wait for a good solution will have a big advantage. In this day of DW, all a player needs to do is fire 4 torpedos in the general direction of his opponent, wait until they start running, and then triangulate with UUV and TA and its over.

Now, we face the real possibility of having solutions on opponents... and not just solutions, but solutions that let you know where he is, but you still can't have a decent chance of killing him. So you stalk!

Now we are closing in on real submarine tactics.

I AM looking at this in context. Looking at how this effects interact with other aspects of gameplay is EXACTLY what my last post was about. Of course, the deep water thing makes the shorter wire problem worse, not better... I'm hoping the ATCM makes up for this in part, and closer contacts bring in the rest.

I did say that this has a lot of potential if you get it right... :P

[LuftWolf]

The bottom line is: if you fire from over 8nm, your chances of a kill drop to near 0 the farther out you get regardless of how many torpedoes you fire. ;)

[Molon Labe]

Let's talk re-attack.

We'll want to make sure the torp doesn't turn around too soon, right? Or else the running while farting CM's all over will work perfectly. The torp should resume it's search forward for a short time, and if it detects a new target it should attack it, but if not, it should turn around and look the other direction.

Which way should it turn? Could it maybe anticipate which side of the last target to look to?

How far should it go? The last thing we want is a torp out of wire doing a cirlce run on ownship, or generally heading in a random direction. Maybe reattack mode should just be a switch to circle search if it loses its target and doesn't find a new one on snake.

Can anything be done to prevent "under the keel" proximity explosions when the target is a submarine? It kinda sucks that you can sometimes evade a torp because they have to set the ceilings too low to hit a shallow sub, and with wires being lost setting a ceiling becomes more important...

[Molon Labe]

The bottom line is: if you fire from over 8nm, your chances of a kill drop to near 0 the farther out you get regardless of how many torpedoes you fire. ;)

As long as you're within range to get a torp on target, having the ability to guide the weapon means you need fewer weapons to cover the possible areas he might be in by the time the weapon gets there. Don't kid yourself about what this will mean if, in the majority of cases, you lose the wire before detonation.

[LuftWolf]

My plan right now is to do what torpedoes do in real life. That is, if you set it to attack submerged targets, it will ignore surface contacts entirely (since the homing seeker gives depth). This will be done for all torpedoes.

The reattack capability will be disabled for decoys, since the torpedoes can tell the difference once they have burned through them. :yep:

[LuftWolf]

My suspicion Molon is that the majority of players will keep using the pedestrian tactics they have been, while the advanced players will be quite adept at maximizing the potential of the new system.

The new torpedoes make quality shots so much more important than the quantity of shots.

Let's not kid ourselves, spraying tactics are quite common now, and when wires can guide six torpedoes at 25nm, a SW player should never really lose.

I don't see how this will make anything worse, only give the best a better shot. :)

[Molon Labe]

My plan right now is to do what torpedoes do in real life. That is, if you set it to attack submerged targets, it will ignore surface contacts entirely (since the homing seeker gives depth). This will be done for all torpedoes.

So surfacing will make the sub safe every time?

The reattack capability will be disabled for decoys, since the torpedoes can tell the difference once they have burned through them. :yep:

What do you mean? That it will remeber the location of the decoy it burned through and ignore that one?

[LuftWolf]

My plan right now is to do what torpedoes do in real life. That is, if you set it to attack submerged targets, it will ignore surface contacts entirely (since the homing seeker gives depth). This will be done for all torpedoes.

So surfacing will make the sub safe every time?

The reattack capability will be disabled for decoys, since the torpedoes can tell the difference once they have burned through them. :yep:

What do you mean? That it will remeber the location of the decoy it burned through and ignore that one?

Give me some credit Ken. :)

IF TgtClass $= "surf" THEN Drop

IF TgtClass $= "weap" THEN Reattack=0

[Molon Labe]

So the torp can tell the difference between a skimmer and a surfaced sub?

I can't make heads or tails of the other one.

[LuftWolf]

The database classifies surface contacts as "surf" and countermeasures as "weap".

In the doctrine, I can use those classifications to specify different kinds of behavior for the torpedo, based on the classification of the target.

For example, for the ADCAP, I can script the doctrine so that if you set the enable depth at under 60ft, the torpedo will simply ignore all surface contacts.

[Molon Labe]

The database classifies surface contacts as "surf" and countermeasures as "weap".

In the doctrine, I can use those classifications to specify different kinds of behavior for the torpedo, based on the classification of the target.

For example, for the ADCAP, I can script the doctrine so that if you set the enable depth at under 60ft, the torpedo will simply ignore all surface contacts.

So, is a surfaced sub considered a surface contact to the torpedo, or will the database help the torp to know something it probably shouldn't know?

And you meant ceiling depth, right?

[LuftWolf]

Yeah, I mean ceiling depth.

The classifications are not variable. A submarine is always a "sub" and a surface vessel is always a "surf" and a countermeasure is always a "weap".

[Molon Labe]

Yeah, I mean ceiling depth.

The classifications are not variable. A submarine is always a "sub" and a surface vessel is always a "surf" and a countermeasure is always a "weap".

That's what I was worried about.

Is there any way to make the way the torp behaves in this regard dependent on the classification on the nav map instead of on Truth?

[LuftWolf]

No, once you fire the torpedo, it is on its own to figure out what stuff is.

Keep in mind Molon, modern torpedoes are very smart, even the MK46 has the ability to distinguish between surface targets and submerged targets.

In real life, there are many reasons a commander would not surface to avoid a torpedo, so if the torpedoes don't ignore targets based on ceiling, and rather based on classification, this is simply walling off a cheat before it comes into existence.

Since you are the lead tester, can you reserve these concerns for the evalution process once the mod actually comes into a testable stage.

A lot of these concerns are more design related than limitation related... the sim is far more flexible than most people realize. I think we are on the same page in terms of what would be "gamey"... I hate "gamey".

[Molon Labe]

A lot of people do an e-blow in last-ditch evasion. Some people surface to shoot at choppers. ;) Anyways, to me, surfaced submarine is a surface platform. :P

So, when do I get something to test? :hmm:

[SeaQueen]

The database classifies surface contacts as "surf" and countermeasures as "weap".

In the doctrine, I can use those classifications to specify different kinds of behavior for the torpedo, based on the classification of the target.

For example, for the ADCAP, I can script the doctrine so that if you set the enable depth at under 60ft, the torpedo will simply ignore all surface contacts.

It's interesting to see you describe how the doctrine and database interact. It seems like DW is ultimately a modeling language.

[MaHuJa]

Keep in mind Molon, modern torpedoes are very smart, even the MK46 has the ability to distinguish between surface targets and submerged targets.

Keep in mind the difference between a "surface" and a "submersible surface" contact.

The ceiling setting will keep it from actually hitting said surfaced sub, but if it treats that contact specially because it's submersible, now that *will* be a cheat - unless you can point to real torpedoes doing this?
(It will force the sub to stay surfaced, vulnerable to ASMs.)

Instead of looking up the contact type, check its depth. If it's surface, then assign it a tactic that will check its depth (and when below the "limit depth" change to the proper homing tactic) but otherwise ignore it.


Essentially you can make a gamble, if surfacing is safe, that the torpedo was sent with such presets. That should not make the torpedo circle around you, forcing you to stay on the surface and marking your position for the enemy sub. (The weapons position is always available on the navmap, as we all know)

In real life, there are many reasons a commander would not surface to avoid a torpedo,

In game, there is ice, there are surface/air platforms with anti-ship capable weapons that will hurt a surfaced submarine, plus you essentially notify anything with a radar of your position.

Was there any others? Ah, I guess satellites; those aren't in DW. Though that isn't much of a concern if the enemy already knows you're there, having shot a torpedo at you. It would have to be somebody elses satellites you were afraid of. But afraid enough to lose the whole ship?

so if the torpedoes don't ignore targets based on ceiling, and rather based on classification, this is simply walling off a cheat before it comes into existence.

Surfacing is hardly a cheat - pretty much the same restrictions from the real world apply in the game.

Or were you referring to something else? I can't see anything else relevant.

edit: removed redundancy

[Molon Labe]

Instead of looking up the contact type, check its depth. If it's surface, then assign it a tactic that will check its depth (and when below the "limit depth" change to the proper homing tactic) but otherwise ignore it.



Oooh oooh ooooh! Me likey! Let's say if a certain "skimmer safe" ceiling is set, the torp ignores anything with a depth shallower than the maximum skimmer draft. Or something like that.

[LuftWolf]

Instead of looking up the contact type, check its depth. If it's surface, then assign it a tactic that will check its depth (and when below the "limit depth" change to the proper homing tactic) but otherwise ignore it.



Oooh oooh ooooh! Me likey! Let's say if a certain "skimmer safe" ceiling is set, the torp ignores anything with a depth shallower than the maximum skimmer draft. Or something like that.

This is how the original anti-surface casualty mod worked that Amizaur developed, and people complained that their opponents were surfacing to avoid being sunk and that this was a cheat... of course, we can do this again if that's the general consensus.

In any case, the way torpedoes handle ceiling now is not correct... in real life, if my information is correct, the ceiling value actually reflects the shallowest possible contact the torpedo will track, so I could just use that value directly in the doctrine.

That is to say, the ceiling will go from being the shallowest possible run for the torpedo, to the shallowest possible contact depth the torpedo will track. In fact, I'm not sure why the doctrines aren't designed like this already, as it makes more sense in every way. :hmm:

[TLAM Strike]

people complained that their opponents were surfacing to avoid being sunk and that this was a cheat... of course, we can do this again if that's the general consensus. Which is what the ARA Santa Fe did to avoid being torpedoed by Royal Navy helocopters in the Falklands war. :roll: :lol:

Considering all platforms except most of the Kilos have ASMs (the kilos have 53-65K ASuW torpedoes though) I don't think this is a problem.

[LuftWolf]

people complained that their opponents were surfacing to avoid being sunk and that this was a cheat... of course, we can do this again if that's the general consensus. Which is what the ARA Santa Fe did to avoid being torpedoed by Royal Navy helocopters in the Falklands war. :roll: :lol:

Well, there you go. :lol:

[MaHuJa]

I agree absolutely that is makes more sense with ceiling limiting what it can track than where it can go, and that it is pretty much how I'd want it.

However, there are a few points.

First, make sure no ships (except lcac) aren't at shallower than 9ft in the doctrines.

Secondly, it shouldn't outright reject them, as much as ignore them until they do go within allowed boundaries. Way I see it, if it has been within the allowed boundaries it's a valid targets wherever it is now.


I cannot remember anything in the past being quite like this. I remember there was a doctrine that had me fired on by an ai, as a ffg, with a ceiling too low to hit me. Repeatedly. And similar problems. Though I guess that if the AI consistently, predictably, uses this, then that too will be a problem.

[MaHuJa]

Wolfy put me on an important point here, regarding the wire breaking.

This is, all in all, about the 688i/akula matchup. The simple fact is, the 688i pretty much depends on wire guidance.

The 688i has an edge in detection. To successfully use this, for this to make a difference, however, depends on having a weapons range to match.


Currently, the 688i is on equal footing because of its better detection capabilities and a weapons range to match. Once that game is on, the akula can counter well enough with its extended weaponry. Now, with wires getting cut, the effective weapons range will be severely limited.

Which requires getting closer. Well within the detection range of the akula, where the asrocs are. Where your advantages are eroded and the akula holds all the cards. In the end, you'll be so busy evading asrocs that you can't get to effective range to fire your own weapons...

>The bottom line is: if you fire from over 8nm, your chances of a kill drop to near 0 the farther out you get regardless of how many torpedoes you fire.

Max range for the Shkval is 6nm. I consider this the minimum range against the akula. That gives you a very thin band to operate in - a very thin band that is far easier to saturate with asrocs.

[MaHuJa]

The bottom line is: if you fire from over 8nm, your chances of a kill drop to near 0 the farther out you get regardless of how many torpedoes you fire. ;)


Thinking closer about this, isn't this pretty much the opposite of what will happen?

For a target that does not maneuver, one torpedo fired on a good solution will always get close. However, I actually expect the target to start maneuvering possibly just seconds after I launch.

Even if the torpedo will be able to handle CMs and evasion patterns intelligently on its own (actually regardless of it), there is still the matter of getting one close enough for that stuff to actually begin - which, in the absense of wire guidance, can best be done by... the spread.

[LuftWolf]

Well, as I said once to Molon, I'm not going to let the tactics of the cheapest players decide what will and won't be in LWAMI, especially when something is so grossly incorrect as full run distance wireguiding.

Most of my games, including fleet games, are ruined by three or four players taking SW's and firing four to six torpedoes at a time, how could it get worse?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Wolfy put me on an important point here, regarding the wire breaking.

This is, all in all, about the 688i/akula matchup. The simple fact is, the 688i pretty much depends on wire guidance.

But wouldn't the same thing also make the SW/Akula fight more even, by forcing the SW to get closer rather than just use outrange tactics with a TB-29 array?

[Molon Labe]

Instead of looking up the contact type, check its depth. If it's surface, then assign it a tactic that will check its depth (and when below the "limit depth" change to the proper homing tactic) but otherwise ignore it.



Oooh oooh ooooh! Me likey! Let's say if a certain "skimmer safe" ceiling is set, the torp ignores anything with a depth shallower than the maximum skimmer draft. Or something like that.

This is how the original anti-surface casualty mod worked that Amizaur developed, and people complained that their opponents were surfacing to avoid being sunk and that this was a cheat... of course, we can do this again if that's the general consensus.

In any case, the way torpedoes handle ceiling now is not correct... in real life, if my information is correct, the ceiling value actually reflects the shallowest possible contact the torpedo will track, so I could just use that value directly in the doctrine.

That is to say, the ceiling will go from being the shallowest possible run for the torpedo, to the shallowest possible contact depth the torpedo will track. In fact, I'm not sure why the doctrines aren't designed like this already, as it makes more sense in every way. :hmm:

Perfect. That pretty much solves the unintended under the keel problem.

About the anti-casualty thing... there's a big difference between AI torps and torps fired with presets.

[Molon Labe]

Well, as I said once to Molon, I'm not going to let the tactics of the cheapest players decide what will and won't be in LWAMI, especially when something is so grossly incorrect as full run distance wireguiding.

Most of my games, including fleet games, are ruined by three or four players taking SW's and firing four to six torpedoes at a time, how could it get worse?


The problem is that if this turns out badly, the good players will do it too because it will actually be the tactically correct, or even necessary, choice.

Not being able to wire guide means more torps will be needed to cover the target's evasion options. So, unless we keep normal engagement range within wire guidance range, we are looking at a frag fest. Fortunately, we've been informed by someone who seems to know what he's talking about that it's more likely you'll get a detonation before running out of wire....please, make the mod refect this!

Don't expect the Akula-Seawolf matchup to be well-balanced. Look to the 688-Akula matchup. The Seawolf is essentially a generation ahead. People really shouldn't be taking a SW in a duel against an Akula in a modded game anyways, its not exactly even odds unless the terrain can negate the SW's advantages...

[Molon Labe]

Wolfy put me on an important point here, regarding the wire breaking.

This is, all in all, about the 688i/akula matchup. The simple fact is, the 688i pretty much depends on wire guidance.

But wouldn't the same thing also make the SW/Akula fight more even, by forcing the SW to get closer rather than just use outrange tactics with a TB-29 array?

If you have an advantage in detection range, what's wrong with being able to use it? The Seawolf is a quieter, much more advanced sub than the Akula, and it should be able to win in a 1 on 1 fight most of the time. The damn things cost so damn much, they better be able to!

[LuftWolf]

So, what can I do to do keep players from firing salvoes at long range if 1) the weapon parameters are realistic, 2) the detection ranges and sonar performance is realistic?

What more can I do?

At the end of the day, it is up to the players to decide how they want to play.

All I know is, in the game of DW as it stands now, there is no point in doing TMA on sub contacts, since the best tactic is to fire on contact seeing as detection range is optimal attack range in most circumstances, and there is absolutely none of the kinds of play that we find in accounts of cold war submarine encounters.

Sure, players could fire long range salvoes on contact, just like they do now. They could also develop rush tactics, moving in along multiple short course legs to give quick TMA and close the distance, while the opponent recognizing this will do a counter sprint along another leg, and the dance begins!... maybe TMA will actually become a weapon in sub vs. sub combat in DW.

I don't know. But I posit that it really can't get worse than now, being chased by four resteered torpedoes by a SW over 25 miles away. I'd rather be chased by four unresteered torpedoes over 25 miles away! ;)

[MaHuJa]

I'll withhold actual judgement till I have a full 'product'; but I'm voicing concerns already, hoping to avoid ever actually seeing those concerns come true.

I came across a saying; "You have to be three times as strong to win, if he has a sword and you don't."

A big part of my problem is that this sort of tactics ends up not being "cheap" but "necessary". That's one huge difference; and it will indeed make it worse since everybody will be using it. Root of the problem: What choice is left to them?

As it is, guiding a single torp through a CM/evasion pattern is part of my game.
I will have to adjust my playing style to account for wires breaking. That's OK.
I don't, however, want to have to rely on ("cheap") salvoes. So please, make sure you're not forcing me to. This will be because I either can't get it reasonably close to the target, so that it can home to begin with, or because it's simple to evade when autonomous in a "CM dance".


What is sure is that this does affect the us subs a lot more than it will the russian ones. Simply because for plenty of weapons the russians don't rely on wires. Unless russian wires will be shorter, I guess.


All I know is, in the game of DW as it stands now, there is no point in doing TMA on sub contacts, since the best tactic is to fire on contact seeing as detection range is optimal attack range in most circumstances, and there is absolutely none of the kinds of play that we find in accounts of cold war submarine encounters.

I don't know exactly what "kinds of play" you're referring to. But there are a few things that may account for the differences.

1) The usually instant TIW warnings.
One of the first things I do upon hearing that warning is usually changing my speed or my course, invalidating the solution it was fired on. The result is actually that firing on a solution is pointless. If the torpedo has managed to close a good bit before that happens, then there was indeed a point.

2) Weapons restrictions
They weren't supposed to fire their weapons in the first place, at least until war actually happened. So, they ended up preparing for it, getting in as good a firing solution as possible for the event that they would fire. Also see #1 above.

3) Different sensor parameters.
The accounts I have seen, where they mention distances for sub-sub detections, are in the couple thousand meters range. This info would be old, possibly a lie, and possibly apply to the spherical array (the hull array, according to other sources, is a non-directional ownship noise sensor.) - but with that sort of distances, many factors change rapidly.

4) Economic restrictions.
If you spent a 8 torpedo salvo on a single sub, I suspect you'd be thoroughly yelled at when you came back. That is not part of DW. Also, you'd have 8 torpedoes less until you got replenished. That is also not part of DW.

5) Loadouts
Most subs back then used torpedo racks for bunks or storage for food etc.
Regulations specified a minimum of four torpedoes; if you spent all in one salvo, then you'd have a problem should you happen upon another - or make a mistake with the first.

A DW player has no advantage whatsoever when leaving his racks empty.


I don't know. But I posit that it really can't get worse than now, being chased by four resteered torpedoes by a SW over 25 miles away. I'd rather be chased by four unresteered torpedoes over 25 miles away!

I don't disagree - and I don't disagree with the idea of wirecutting - but considerable care needs to be taken.
First of all, right now manual guidance or smarter torpedoes are needed for the "CM dance".
Secondly, esp in face of instant TIW warnings, for a torpedo to get within sensor range, it has an effective range of perhaps wire range + 4nm or so - and if this puts the 688i well within detection/kill range of the akula, the 688i has lost its most important (and pretty much sole?) advantage.

My belief is that the wire length needs be set far out, at least for the adcap. I'm thinking of a minimum of 12-15nm.




As for the "salvo problem", there is no silver bullet. This is certainly no solution to that.
With things as they are, it's always an advantage with more torpedoes in the water heading for a target.

Possible countermeasures I can think of:
-false contacts, when included by a mission designer, means a player should hold back to spend on a real target if the one shot on was not. While somewhat possible already, much could be done to support this in the mod
-torpedoes somehow interfering with each other - if this can be explained as a realistic effect. (homing on each other? Nah, that would give way to hardkill countertorpedo tactics; The guy with the most tubes and torpedoes win sort of games...)
-tournaments etc that does keep a loadout between missions - being common, the rule rather than the exception. Simply put, this being what people train for.

[Amizaur]

This is how the original anti-surface casualty mod worked that Amizaur developed, and people complained that their opponents were surfacing to avoid being sunk and that this was a cheat...


Hmm I tried to avoid possibility of exploiting this, subs were safe (from AI torpedos) ONYLY if there were surface contacts nearby. If there were no surface contacts, AI torps killed subs wherever they were. This was meaned to simulate AI using ceiling settings as real human player would set. I believe in RL surfacing sub could escape torpedo IF there were close friendly or neutral surfaces. But of course this would leave it vunerable to ASMs. But if players were able to exploit it anyway, playing against AI, then it should be changed. Well we would have to "cheat" a little, getting not target depth but target class from doctrine (sub or surface), to avoid "cheating" by a player... Then sub class target would never escape from AI torp by surfacing...[/quote]

P.S. Just read this again - "their opponents were surfacing to avoid" - this should NEVER happen !! The mod should work ONLY for AI torpedos, should not affect human player torps in any way !!! The most important part of it, which I'm a bit proud of :-), was finding a way to discrimine human player torp from AI launched torp - and affect only AI launched torps !
Please, can you confirm that anti-casuality mod prevented human players from killing surfacing sub ??

That is to say, the ceiling will go from being the shallowest possible run for the torpedo, to the shallowest possible contact depth the torpedo will track. In fact, I'm not sure why the doctrines aren't designed like this already, as it makes more sense in every way. :hmm:

Great idea again ! :up: This would be much better in avoiding fracticide than my original mod ! But still surfacing sub could escape torpedo if we based this only on target depth... untill we use "if not tgtclass = sub" :-)

[Deathblow]

Great idea again ! :up: This would be much better in avoiding fracticide than my original mod ! But still surfacing sub could escape torpedo if we based this only on target depth... untill we use "if not tgtclass = sub" :-)

but how would a torp in RL know that its target that is at the surface is really the sub that escaped to the surface, it wouldn't... the question still remains...

Captains are just going to have to live with that possibility given they set a deep ceiling in the first place... if they don't want to leave that avenue, then they must give the torp more attack leaway.

Perhaps all these options can be extrapolated to Surface ship attacks as well, with torps ignoring subs at depth with a floor setting high enough.... of course that's usually not much of a problem unless you have a ambigous contact that your not sure is a sub or ship.

[SeaQueen]

Wolfy put me on an important point here, regarding the wire breaking.

This is, all in all, about the 688i/akula matchup. The simple fact is, the 688i pretty much depends on wire guidance.

The 688i has an edge in detection. To successfully use this, for this to make a difference, however, depends on having a weapons range to match.


Currently, the 688i is on equal footing because of its better detection capabilities and a weapons range to match. Once that game is on, the akula can counter well enough with its extended weaponry. Now, with wires getting cut, the effective weapons range will be severely limited.


That's not true, necessarily. Now, for longer ranged shots, in order to guarantee a reasonable probability of kill against an Akula or any other nuclear boat for that matter, you would need to work out the geometry and employ some type of salvoing scheme.

The straight running torpedoes, in the case, would work to your advantage because they'd have a higher average speed.

To me, it adds some sublety to the game instead of what I typically see for long ranged shots - inaccurate TMA and walking the torpedo in with wire guidence after it goes active nowhere NEAR the target. People who depend on wire guidence to get their torpedoes near their target SHOULD be at a disadvantage, and this would help this problem.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

If you have an advantage in detection range, what's wrong with being able to use it? The Seawolf is a quieter, much more advanced sub than the Akula, and it should be able to win in a 1 on 1 fight most of the time. The damn things cost so damn much, they better be able to!

It's all right to be able to use it. I suppose every Seawolf guy using his right now. Unless you really can't.

In which case, if we make the game as realistic as we could (and we assume it is adequately realistic to have some small relevance to real life), and the result is that Seawolves lose to Akulas on a regular basis in realistic scenarios (not necessarily regular dogfight MP scenarios), then what that may mean is that there was a mistake in the path and doctrines chosen by the US sub arm as a whole.

Maybe they should have gone for longer torpedoes so they could stuff more wire in. Maybe the mistake was that they should have developed SUBROC into a conventional weapon instead of shedding it in its nuclear depth charge stage...

I think that would have been an interesting thing to check out, and mostly a good thing.

If we assume the short wire lengths are correct, and we don't follow, the game won't be very realistic. And how can a situation where the Seawolf has nearly indefeatable advantage be fun. So both goals would be lost. I'm for max realism, and then seeing what comes out.

The lucky thing with the US military is that it enjoys what is almost certainly overall the most advanced military-industrial complex in the world. So if they realize their chosen path is inferior, they can correct more easily.

If the US made the mistake during the Cold War of making fast subs instead of quiet ones, it won't hurt them nearly as much as that mistake hurt the Soviets.

[Molon Labe]

USN dropped the subroc/lea lance because it was unlikely that it would detect a contact far enough out to need one. The Russians are much, much quieter than they used to be.

[Molon Labe]

To me, it adds some sublety to the game instead of what I typically see for long ranged shots - inaccurate TMA and walking the torpedo in with wire guidence after it goes active nowhere NEAR the target. People who depend on wire guidence to get their torpedoes near their target SHOULD be at a disadvantage, and this would help this problem.

If your initial solution is still good enough to get an acquisition by the time the torp is on target, then you need to play against opponents that evade better. Competent opponents need to be tracked during evasion so that the torps can be resteered to intercept them on their evason course, unless you put so many torps in the water that every possible evasion course is covered.

A player firing a snapshot is at a disadvantage against a player that had an initial solution, btw. Well, in modded games anyways, the stock game levels it out a bit thanks to the damn torp-exploding decoys (but really, who plays stock anymore? :-j ). Maybe toward the end of the month I'll do an informal survey of dive reports to see how it plays out, but in the meantime my gut tells me to put 2-to-1 odds on the player with the first detection/solution/shot and that there isn't a problem here.

[LuftWolf]

Well, if you guys want, I could quickly whip up a BETA of the ATC mod combined with the LWAMI 3.02 torpedo doctrine combined with some quick wire limitations... and all you MP wizards can tell me what happens!

It won't have the advanced torpedo physics or sensor modelling, but those changes are relatively neutral in terms of the wire length mod.

I've had a bit of change of heart on how significantly the advanced physics will change the game, since the torpedoes will only go to depth when they are homing on a deep target. So, in fact, it may make evading torpedoes easier at the last moment, but perhaps not in the initial firing stage in terms of clearing datum.

So all in all, the ATC and wire limit mods are the biggest gameplay changes planned, so I think its best we start testing those in theory and in practice.

So, who wants to help? (MaHuJa, Molon, TLAM, Bellman, Xabba, Seaqueen, Deathblow, Kaz...) ;)

[Molon Labe]

Gimme, gimme, gimme!!!

[TLAM Strike]

Well, as I said once to Molon, I'm not going to let the tactics of the cheapest players decide what will and won't be in LWAMI, especially when something is so grossly incorrect as full run distance wireguiding.

Most of my games, including fleet games, are ruined by three or four players taking SW's and firing four to six torpedoes at a time, how could it get worse?No worries, its been proven it takes more than a full salvo from a SW or two to kill me... :lol: :up:

So, who wants to help? (MaHuJa, Molon, TLAM, Bellman, Xabba, Seaqueen, Deathblow, Kaz...) ;)

Yea I can help... :up:

[Bellman]

I'm in !! (Heck thats my shortest post ever ;) )

[LuftWolf]

Ok, I'll try to whip something up.

Fish you are of course welcome to.

Anyone else who want to try it is more than welcome to, so long as they understand, it's a ***ALPHA*** Playtesters Special. :yep: :D :cool:

[SeaQueen]

Competent opponents need to be tracked during evasion so that the torps can be resteered to intercept them on their evason course, unless you put so many torps in the water that every possible evasion course is covered.


True on both counts. Even two torpedoes can cover every possible evasion course at the right range, btw. It doesn't take a lot. I don't see most people doing that, though.

You're also assuming, though, that it's a one-on-one. I've noticed in replays that people who walk torpedoes in, often don't hit the target they originally aimed at, either. They end up hitting someone else. A lot of this is due to the scenarios themselves being contrived (the space is way too densely packed), but the way wire guidence is now also facilitates the tactic because it makes it possible to effectively use a torpedo as a high-speed, ASW UUV.


A player firing a snapshot is at a disadvantage against a player that had an initial solution, btw.


Depending on how close the guy with the solution is, this is also true.

[SubSerpent]

Why even ask this question?


Of course we want all that and a soda machine onboard :-j

[SeaQueen]

USN dropped the subroc/lea lance because it was unlikely that it would detect a contact far enough out to need one. The Russians are much, much quieter than they used to be.

It wasn't just the Russians becoming quieter that was driving that. It was also a matter of the US strategic focus changing to places where convergence zone detections were less likely.

[Bellman]

SQ:Torpedo as a high-speed, ASW UUV

BOT - LwAmi mod. :yep: This is exactly what we want a UUV which has a higher range, variable speed control and
search patterns. Not a torp exhibiting the earlier LwAmi 'feedbacks' but an unarmed torpedo with that
type of performance married to a UUVs sensor capacity.

The essence of depth and speed control of such a new UUV would be stealth and it should be possible
to slow it right down (or temporarily stop it) with resulting sonar enhancement and extensions to range.

Luftwolf may recall our earlier correspondence.

[SeaQueen]

Not a torp exhibiting the earlier LwAmi 'feedbacks' but an unarmed torpedo with that
type of performance married to a UUVs sensor capacity.


Personally, I don't think the UUV should be good for doing anything but hunting mines. Currently, there only exists one UUV in the US inventory, the LMRS. It has a side-scan imaging sonar for hunting bottom mines, and a short range, high frequency, forward looking, active sonar for detecting floating and tethered mines.

There's a lot of talk in theoretical circles about an ASW oriented UUV, but it's all purely theoretical and it looks like to do it you'd have to build something much larger than would fit in a torpedo tube. There's some talk about something called the Sea Talon that Lockheed Martin is looking at building, but that's not going to fit on a submarine. It all exists only on PowerPoint slides at this point.

[LuftWolf]

So...

Should I make the UUV better or worse?

(Still chewing on the wirelimit test doctrine... working 12+ hours a day in the real world on big boy things...)

[TLAM Strike]

I think the UUVs should have better range and speed. More like the LMRS.

Something you can really send to scout ahead. Thats what UUVs have been billed as.

[Molon Labe]

So...

Should I make the UUV better or worse?

(Still chewing on the wirelimit test doctrine... working 12+ hours a day in the real world on big boy things...)

A little of both. =)

Decrease sensitivity, increase non-cavitating NL, increase cavitation depth, increase range (battery time and/or speed), add variable depth capability.

[WolfyBrandon]

So, what can I do to do keep players from firing salvoes at long range if 1) the weapon parameters are realistic, 2) the detection ranges and sonar performance is realistic?


As for the "salvo problem", there is no silver bullet. This is certainly no solution to that.
With things as they are, it's always an advantage with more torpedoes in the water heading for a target.

Possible countermeasures I can think of:
-false contacts, when included by a mission designer, means a player should hold back to spend on a real target if the one shot on was not. While somewhat possible already, much could be done to support this in the mod

That was one good thing I liked about SCX was the false contacts and if they could be created for DW that would really help with the salvo problem. It would make players be more careful what they fire at, and conserve torpedos so if they did indeed fire on a false contact (anomoly) that would give away their position and they would need to conserve torpedos to defend themselves.

Wolfy

[Deathblow]

If you spent a 8 torpedo salvo on a single sub, I suspect you'd be thoroughly yelled at when you came back. That is not part of DW. Also, you'd have 8 torpedoes less until you got replenished. That is also not part of DW.

As for the "salvo problem", there is no silver bullet. This is certainly no solution to that.
With things as they are, it's always an advantage with more torpedoes in the water heading for a target.

A question about this:

How do we know that large torpedo salvos *aren't* what the reality of real life sub vs sub combat would be? Has anyone here actually been in a real life and death sub battle with their life and the life of their crew on the line? If you have 8 tubes, and a better killing the enemy with more torps fired, and in the process giving a better chance of saving your hide from a watery grave... then what *would* stop a real life commander from no-holds-barred tatics to save his ship? Just what have all those tubes been designed for then?

Everyone is insistent upon the "only one-two torps per volley" obession as "real life" but does anyone have proof that this is the reality besides Hollywood moview and television?

[WolfyBrandon]

I think the ideas are baised on the cost of torpedos, since they are so expensive and all this money goes into training the crew I don't think the military would want you wasting so many torpedos on a single target. Like in the air force they wouldn't want you wasting your entire payload on a single ground target or all your missles on a single enemy fighter. :hmm:

Wolfy

[TLAM Strike]

Everyone is insistent upon the "only one-two torps per volley" obession as "real life" but does anyone have proof that this is the reality besides Hollywood moview and television?Well lets see whats been done in real war...

HMS Conquer fired three torpedoes at Belgrano.
ARA San Luis fired two torpedoes at HMS Brilliant and/or HMS Yarmouth
ARA San Luis attacked HMS Alacrity and HMS Arrow. Unknown number of torpedoes.
ARA San Luis attacked POSUB (Possibly Oberon Class HMS Onyx?) Unknown number of torpedoes.
PNS Hangor attacks INS Kirpan with 1 torpedo
PNS Hangor attacks INS Khukri with 1 torpedo sinking her
PNS Hangor attacks INS Kirpan (again) with 1 torpedo
^Those last three all in one battle
INS Tanin attacks Egyptian Frigate. Unknown number of torpedoes.

Maybe someone who knows more about the Tanin and San Luis can comment on how many weapons they fired.

[SeaQueen]

So...

Should I make the UUV better or worse?


The sensor should be very short ranged maybe a few hundred yards in each direction, and active only.

[SeaQueen]

I think the UUVs should have better range and speed. More like the LMRS.

Something you can really send to scout ahead. Thats what UUVs have been billed as.

It's hard to go fast and use a sidescan sonar. I'm not clear that the LMRS goes very fast at all. It's also sort of unclear exactly what they're supposed to be scouting ahead of.

My suspicion is that the actual idea is probably to use the speed of the SSN to get the LMRS someplace near a beach and ahead of the fleet, where the SSN will stop. While it's there they'll use the LMRS to scout out the mines convertly while something like an ESG approaches the hostile coast.

So... it's scouting ahead but not ahead of the SSN, so much as ahead of the fleet.

[Deathblow]

All the things I read says that the heavyweight (torptub sized) UUV do about 3-4 knots with about a 30-50 hour endurance, iirc. What they don't say is that ANY uuv currently in existence has ASW detection capability and are really only suitable to mine recon.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/technology/uuvmp.pdf
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_15/wave.html
http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/may06-14.php

Perhaps a very drastically reduced sensor capability with a 50+ nm range? That should make things interesting...

[Deathblow]

You know what truly simulated UUV behavior would be...

... a uuv that is not wired controlled, but moves independently and promots contacts to the link intermitantly.

[Henson]

How many torpedoes would we shoot?

As many as it takes. There is guidance on this subject, but I cannot elaboarate here.

Just keep in mind that all but three US submarines have only 4 horizontal tubes...how long do you think it takes to secure from a launch and load another 21' long weapon (and that's if we don't care about keeping the wire)? When you're talking about the possibility of other platforms out there, care for your own survivability dictates that you use the minimum necessary force when you are faced with limited reload capacity. That is a question of submarine warfare that has been faced since the beginning...how many weapons should I shoot? The purpose of better weapons is to eliminate the need for 'shotgunning' or overkill. We have built weapons that are survivable and intelligent enough in their own right that they allow us to run away. "He who shoots first dies last."

[Bellman]

UUVs - Any quest for reality must unfortunately limit itself to replicating what we know is currently available.

Whilst the prospect of the tactical possibilities of the large UUV project is exciting it can never be right in a real-world
sim to second-guess the future. However I think it safe to make a reasoned judgement that no sane skipper
would risk his sub navigating through or near high risk expopsure and littoral water areas without the benefit
of a (some) recce device/s.

Obviously such devices must exist and are highly classified. However taking cognisance of the extreme quietness
of many platforms and high background noise levels in shallower waters we can confidently simulate an improved UUV.

That this UUV is mine tasked is clear but its performane characteristics are unknown. This is a game
and the LwAmi mod new UUV, within software possibilities, should reflect what we think is realistic. (THINK)
So if the modders request our (vote) for 'realistic' type features we should consider only what will enhance the game.

My focus would be on increased range/durability, variable speeds, a loiter facility and both passive and active
sonar. The sonar performance judgement is the 'big issue' :hmm:

[Deathblow]

Heck we might as well throw in HyStrike Missiles (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/hystrike.htm), Tatical Tomahawks, USN SuperCavitator Torps (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/hsuw.htm), and Nuclear Electric Drive Submarines (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2000/power_system.htm)

j/k.... actually.. not really

[Bellman]

:D More great links DB, thanks. :up:

A new UUV could be quite a useful sensitive tool like a dentists probe. Just a small step forward from what we have.
Given range and deployment/run-out speed improvements many tactical aspects of the sim would be enhanced.

Egs. Launch deep and slow until cover behind seamount then accelerate round towards opponents suspected flank
position and go slow and probe. Etc....

Makes sense - why risk deploying an expensive state of the art sub and its crew in or near high risk areas including
shallow littoral waters when you can recce the area and/or clear mines with a fraction of the cost benefit risk ratio.

[SeaQueen]

All the things I read says that the heavyweight (torptub sized) UUV do about 3-4 knots with about a 30-50 hour endurance, iirc. What they don't say is that ANY uuv currently in existence has ASW detection capability and are really only suitable to mine recon.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/technology/uuvmp.pdf
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_15/wave.html
http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/may06-14.php

Perhaps a very drastically reduced sensor capability with a 50+ nm range? That should make things interesting...

Well... ya know... there's nothing that says you CAN'T detect a submarine with an imaging sonar. "Hey... guys... I think I found the SSK they said was around here..." *taps on screen*

It's just that they typically can't see very far. :-)

[SeaQueen]

How do we know that large torpedo salvos *aren't* what the reality of real life sub vs sub combat would be? Has anyone here actually been in a real life and death sub battle with their life and the life of their crew on the line?
...

Everyone is insistent upon the "only one-two torps per volley" obession as "real life" but does anyone have proof that this is the reality besides Hollywood movies and television?

I've talked to a couple former submarine officers on it, and they both had different answers. The one argued that a one-shot-one-kill mentality was common. The other, who was an old Cold Warrior, and more mathematically oriented, seemed to think more like I do on the subject, talking about salvo sizes, torpedo search widths, and geometry.

I don't think there's a single "best" tactic. My sense is that it depends on the target and how far away it is.

The only thing I've found available to the public on the subject is some stuff left over from WWII for straight running and passive acoustic homing torpedoes in Methods of Operations Research by Morse and Kimball. The logic in that sort of literature is very general, though. There's not really any reason why you couldn't apply a lot of it to develop tactics for contemporary weaponry.

[OneShot]

As for the One Shot - One Kill issue, well personally I try to go for that, and it has proven to work most of the times, but it is risky and certainly not guaranteed to yield satisfactory results. However especially with the "new" Accoustics model after 1.03 it is clearly possible to bring it off ... even more then once in one game (I tried it and it works), but you need a pretty good SWAG of your enemys whereabouts, which in turn makes TMA pretty important.

Nevertheless I can see the logic behind the salvo suggestion(s) and given the right tactical situation I guess that would be a prudent choice of action, still my personal preference is the One Shot - One Kill tactic.

[Bellman]

Not sure how we come to be talking 'Salvos' in a LwAmi mod thread. :hmm: Some folk around here are on their
favourite soapbox. :D LuftWolf you asked ''Should I make the UUV better or worse ? ''
May I suggest that you run a poll on UUV development ?

My feeling is that the LwAmi sub v sub environment often demands slow stealthy progress, which can turn
rapidly into a knife fight. The 'Salvo' propagandists will lead us down a slippery slope of 'Doom' overkill.
However real, and the arguments continue, this will be the unintended outcome in many free for all
and team sub v sub dives.

Better to cope with the relative short sightedness by compensating with enhanced standoff probes.
UUVs will then redress the balance in SSN matches. Do we really want to take part in dump and run fests ?

We know that its real F18 procedure for a flight/s to stand-off incoming enemy formations by launching
all their air to air s.a. missiles from high altitude then do a 180 and dive shallow beneath enemies radar.
But it sure made for a dull game ! Ditto DW.!! :damn:

[SeaQueen]

You know what truly simulated UUV behavior would be...

... a uuv that is not wired controlled, but moves independently and promots contacts to the link intermitantly.

That would be better. It'd be nice to set some waypoints and just have it drive a search pattern. I'm not sure if promoting links would be the way it'd do it, though. There's lots of talk about improved underwater communications but once again, it all exists only on PowerPoint. I suspect that they actually have to recover the UUV back through the torpedo tube and download what it's found to a computer.

[SeaQueen]

Do we really want to take part in dump and run fests ?


That's sort of SSNs and SSes are there for. :-) If you want to slug it out, surface warfare is where it's at. It's also much more fast paced.

Harpoon is best for surface warfare, though.

But it sure made for a dull game ! Ditto DW.!! :damn:

Not if you design the scenario right, and everyone executes their equally thought out tactics well.

Here's how the ideal situation works:
Side A shoots... with 0.9 Pk (according to his own estimates)
but due to errors in estimating the range to target the true Pk is in fact about 0.65.

Side B counterfires, lucks out and evades.

Side A detects side B's countefire but decides it won't hit anything. He takes his best depth for evasion and slinks away a 6kts.

Side B then begins some sort of search tactic (which might be as simple as just driving down the bearing of the original torpedo launch), and eventually sneaks up on side A....

These things are not boring. They ARE however time consuming. :-)

[Bellman]

Well SQ I'm going to pay due regard to the position your in and back-off and say like Galbraith - 'I hear you!'

UUVs: I suspect that there are many good reasons why the topic and the LwAmi modding of UUVs will end in a 'blind alley.'
It would just be kinda nice to shuffle a little further nearer to what cannot be mere paper illusions !

Boredom: My threshold, as you should know (Kara), is very high........usualy !

Salvos: What I fear is the contamination of impressionable newcomers to our sim, who may not see it as an
appropriate tactic in certain circumstances. But a return to 'carpet bombing' thinking.

[SeaQueen]

UUVs: I suspect that there are many good reasons why the topic and the LwAmi modding of UUVs will end in a 'blind alley.'
It would just be kinda nice to shuffle a little further nearer to what cannot be mere paper illusions !


It depends on what you think is a paper illusion. Right now, the only operational UUV is the LMRS. Everything else exists either only on paper, or else is a university or corporate research project. Heck, a coworker of mine just got back from a conference and apparently one of the engineers trying to sell one to the Navy works out of his garage. The whole UUV thing is REALLY rough right now. I don't see that it's going to change for a while.

UUVs will probably be used for ASW in the future somehow. It's not really clear how, though. The big challenge is how to fit a sensor on it. The only one I know of that looks like a really reasonable ASW weapon because it tows a VDS, the Sea Talon, only exists on paper, and is carried by a surface ship. It's too big for a submarine.


Boredom: My threshold, as you should know (Kara), is very high........usualy !


So what are you complaining about?


Salvos: What I fear is the contamination of impressionable newcomers to our sim, who may not see it as an
appropriate tactic in certain circumstances. But a return to 'carpet bombing' thinking.

I say let 'em carpet bomb. It doesn't help you much if the distance scales for the whole scenario are reasonable. The root cause is not that the tactic itself is bad, but that the scenarios are often inappropriately compact.

[Bellman]

Kurushio wrote:
Are navy dolphins given suicide missions?

SQ wrote:
No, but they are trained to do very dangerous things like scouting the way through minefields and marking the mines. They're actually a very important part of amphibious operations. The different marine mammals can find mines buried in the bottom and in the water column, in difficult acoustic environments, better than anything we have now.

OK, OK - I'll settle for a dolphin (conversion) - LuftWolf ? ;)

[TLAM Strike]

Why not? Anyone remember Darwin the Dolphin from seaQuest? :lol:

[LuftWolf]

The whole UUV thing is REALLY rough right now. I don't see that it's going to change for a while.

In a sense, this is why it is so fun to be able to make one work from scratch with a database alteration and a few lines of script. :)

I have no problem making a hypothetical 2nd generation ASW UUV.

The biggest issue is that is HAS to be shared between the russians and the US, although I can do some funny things to the doctrines to make them a bit different.

[SeaQueen]

In a sense, this is why it is so fun to be able to make one work from scratch with a database alteration and a few lines of script. :)

I have no problem making a hypothetical 2nd generation ASW UUV.

The biggest issue is that is HAS to be shared between the russians and the US, although I can do some funny things to the doctrines to make them a bit different.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=13643&rsbci=5&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400

In my mind, I have a picture of something very different from anything like the current DW UUV. If possible, I wouldn't bother to make it a tube launched weapon. I'd make it a whole new unit that just links data, like the Predator UAV. It's just way too different from anything that the current UUV does. The Sea Talon UUV is a semi-semersible, trailing an active VDS. It's almost more like a surface ship.

I don't know anything about Russian UUVs or if they exist at all. I'm also not clear that it really fits with their current strategic focus. But what do I know?

[Bellman]

'Sea Talon Submarine' - ''Temporarily unavailable'' :D

Well we have a useful tube launcher so we just want a wee shuffle forward from that LW.
Compared with the existing UUV an increased range and higher deployment speed. Loiter and/or stop. start ?

If Amizaurs proposed depth/speed mod bears fruit then some features could cross-fertilise. Might be fun also
to see what a little extra sonar performance might bring. Then we might be able to design the type of lower
density, alrger area, MP maps that SQ loses sleep about. ;)

Sorry, I ask for a lot - all I can offer is comprehensive testing support !

[Deathblow]

That would be better. It'd be nice to set some waypoints and just have it drive a search pattern. I'm not sure if promoting links would be the way it'd do it, though. There's lots of talk about improved underwater communications but once again, it all exists only on PowerPoint. I suspect that they actually have to recover the UUV back through the torpedo tube and download what it's found to a computer.

I think one of the current design goals is to equip a radio, where the uuv will go to the surface and broadcast data on a predetermined schedule http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/may06-14.php

[Amizaur]

I don't have time to search for proper post to quote, but:

- to prevent 8 or even 4 torpedo salvos by human player - I think the best solution would be by Sonalysts - if score counting system was modified and some kind of "cost" of each launched weapon was substracted from overal mission score, so by killing a small single target with 8 torpedos salvo, the player could actually earn negative score :-). Or overal mission score would be divided by number of launched weapons - you want good score, spend smallest number of weapons you can to achieve mission. In this case you could sometimes decide to not engage secondary targets (like in RL sometimes), as this would reduce your score seriously.

And in MP games when players don't care about score, just want to kill somebody... I'm not sure there any solution possible for this... other than written or unwritten rules saying what is not fair (and realistic), like launching more than 2-3 torps on one enemy sub.
( In fact, I think in real life the torpedos in salvo have all same electronics and similar sonar picture, so if real life decoy deceive one torpedo, it would probably make same to 4 torpedos... are contermeasures working or not working, it's not based on entirely random factor in real life. And this is the case in the game :-/. )
So in human against human games, I think making and "signing" some kind of ROE for all players in session is the only way to prevent 8 torpedo salvos.

As for AI sub launching torps with new advanced physics outside effective range, or setting wrong parameters - it can be partially resolved by detecting (inside the doctrine) if torpedo is human or AI launched, and if AI, then setting optimal depth for torpedo run (shallow at long range with dive at enable), to prevent out-of-range shots. Also different version of AI torps (and subs) could be made, like in SCX and like Luftwolf proposed, but there is also other option - the AI atack routines are written in doctrine too ! So it should be quite easy to program in sub_eng_sub (or whatever it was named, can't remember now) doctrine correct torpedo evenlope parameters ! Just some more rules than torp max range only - allowed launch range would depend on target class (SSks can't run very fast), target depth ect. We can decide at which range should AI sub launch it's weapons. This could only require making few versions of sub behaviur doctrine for different armed subs (depends what weapons available, different evenlopes for Spearfishs. ADCAP or TEST-71...)

[Deathblow]

on side note...I've tried messing around with adding new sensor types to the UUV that are more consistent with the USN short term development goals, mainly ELINT as the most immediate goal, planned to give port and shore electronic survilence capability so that subs don't have to risk coming so close to ports for recon mission they would just launch a uuv...
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_15/images/2_uuv_copy.gif

... problem is that even if the UUV is given additional sensors, the game engine won't recognize them. Real bummer. :nope:

[SeaQueen]

I think one of the current design goals is to equip a radio, where the uuv will go to the surface and broadcast data on a predetermined schedule http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/may06-14.php

That's still FAR from the real time information you get now.

[SeaQueen]

'Sea Talon Submarine' - ''Temporarily unavailable'' :D


Yeah... they can't even make it work on the WWW.


Well we have a useful tube launcher so we just want a wee shuffle forward from that LW.
Compared with the existing UUV an increased range and higher deployment speed. Loiter and/or stop. start ?


But that's not what's realistic. What's realistic is to keep the speed the same, reduce the sensor range to maybe a nautical mile in each direction make it active only, with a frequency in the tens of kilohertz range or higher.


Then we might be able to design the type of lower
density, alrger area, MP maps that SQ loses sleep about. ;)


There's nothing stopping you now. With the exception of the UUV, I'm actually pretty happy with the sensors in the game.

[Bellman]

A higher deployment speed means that speed which is appropriate to stealthy routing to the UUVs area of
activation. During this time of transiting passive and active sonar would be suspended. On attaining its area
of search the UUV would be activated in a manner suitable to its purpose given depth and SSP characteristics.

That purpose may be to loiter or stand ( :roll: SQ) receptively, or to search either passively or actively.
If further search is required its progress and sonar stance will be selected for its task. 'Standing' switched off
will conserve its potential. Wire limits would be more suitable to the game environment, though there are indications
that 'on paper' an independent means of contol by near surface radio contact would be desirable

SQ: You and I may be happy with what we have but in the main MP DW gamers will not and cannot tolerate
large maps, distant separations and games which run much over 2 hours. Most MP maps take this of necessity
into account. Hence my 'shock and horror' ;) at 'Scatter and carpet bombing salvo 'tactics on these maps.
Amizaur has pointed the way on salvo rules appropriate to Fleets and disciplined groups.

Taking on board SQs request for more realism in map size/platform separation we are left with a situation
where particularly in LwAmi one cannot risk the higher sub speeds used for searching in SC. Thats the rub !
One answer might be to bring into the game the enhanced UUV (torp mod) discussed above. This would
bring back a facility for stand-off searching in larger maps. So now when the diver gets a distant suspicious NB tonal
he can launch the Mk2 UUV for investigation. Send it steathily out off the contacts bearing, turn back on it and
run it at deployment speed (Sensors off) Slow and search etc.. Or merely patrol UUV/s searching ahead of the sub.
Combined with own subs concurrent tactics this opens up a Pandoras Box !

To maximise on DWs tactical potential, SQ is right to point us in the direction of more realistic MP maps.
We should seek all means to compress the scenarios dynamic evolution into the gamers available time slot.

[LuftWolf]

Ok guys. :)

Great news.

I have finished merging the Advanced Torpedo Control Mod with the WireBreak Mod, and its working... well... *spectacularly*, at least in testing.

So now I need to finish it up with the correct parameters and put it into a playtest distribution.

Expect the LWAMI ATC+WB Mod Playtest to be posted to the CADC today! :up:

Cheers,
David

PS Aren't you guys excited? I am! :rock:

[Bellman]

Standingby simmering ! :rock: :up: :cool:

[SeaQueen]

SQ: You and I may be happy with what we have but in the main MP DW gamers will not and cannot tolerate
large maps, distant separations and games which run much over 2 hours.


Then basically what you're saying is that there really is no hope of ever making a realistic MP scenario, and therefore we should adopt equally unrealistic limits on tactics in order to make the situation further contrived?

I like simulations not games.


Taking on board SQs request for more realism in map size/platform separation we are left with a situation
where particularly in LwAmi one cannot risk the higher sub speeds used for searching in SC. Thats the rub !


And that's realistic. One of the big weaknesses of submarines is that they are slow, 4-6 knots is about what one would expect for them to search at. Actually, though, if the distance scale is reasonable, higher speeds become more viable sometimes.

Believe it or not, just due to kinematics, it's often very difficult to hit a high speed target. With barrier searches, where you might only get one opportunity to detect a transitor, the cost/benefit of high speed can be less clear.

Sometimes I worry that some of the reason that people do the things in this game that they do is actually because they just don't have a deep enough understanding of exactly what the important things they need to capture are in order to have a realistic set of possible outcomes.

So... what you get is ultimately Sea Doom (with or without salvos).


This would bring back a facility for stand-off searching in larger maps. So now when the diver gets a distant suspicious NB tonal
he can launch the Mk2 UUV for investigation. Send it steathily out off the contacts bearing, turn back on it and
run it at deployment speed (Sensors off) Slow and search etc.. Or merely patrol UUV/s searching ahead of the sub.


That's great, but it's science fiction. Any fleet actually interested in realism, would ban the use of any UUVs like that.

[LuftWolf]

That's great, but it's science fiction. Any fleet actually interested in realism, would ban the use of any UUVs like that.

That's an odd thing to read, just as I was about to create a Second Generation UUV.

The LWAMI playtest that is going to be released today, will feature an upgraded UUV.

SeaQueen, I like pushing the sim to the limits of what is possible. It is entirely possible to have a good UUV. I'm sure if it were as easy as it is for me to make one in DW, the government would put them on all their submarines as soon as possible.

That's why I mod DW. :)

Creating a mod or a game/sim is not simply plugging in values and writing code, sometimes its just about creating a world in some ways more ideal than the real one.

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

That having been said:

I *strongly* agree with your sentiments on mission design.

Although, there is place in this community for all kinds of quality missions, I think it is important to remember as well.

[Bellman]

UUVs: With respect for SQ I do really suspect that he cant leave his work hat outside the game room.
Also given a considered response taking more time than usual from him I think a little misdirection is going on !
I hope that you wont be detered by 'noises off !!'

Realism is a matter of interpretation - can his claim, elsewhere, to enjoy ''Save and exit'' features be realistic ? Not in my book !
That feature, necessary though it is, renders most sims 'gamey' A philosophy which leads to the 'Pause' in flight
mentality ! So there are some fine distinctions beeing made here. Sniffyness to the left and Nelsons telescope a droit !

LwAmi enthusiasts will appreciate that your UUV developments are not prescient but would seem to fill a
gap in the 'market.' ''Science Fiction'' dissmisive criticism just wont hack it ! You are pushing the sims envelope
but I doubt your UUV efforts are unrealistic.

Lets not get this out of proportion you are not taking 'one big step for mankind' but just a small shuffle forward
along a dimly lit but extant path. The best course of action is to poll the players.Its their game ! :ping:

[LuftWolf]

I'm more or less done with the UUV.

It has: 1) a passive sensor similar to a sphere sonar, with a sensitivity equivalent to a Xia or Victor III sphere sonar 2) An active sonar that is inferior the MH60 dipping sonar, but better than a high quality HWT 3) variable depth capability, with the same depth controls as the Advanced torpedo mod 4) A search speed of 6kts, with the capability to sprint at 20kts; the cavitation and sound vs. speed profile is logical and should work well for various tactics 5) a range of 32 kilometers, with *plenty* of wire on board the ship and UUV (eg I can't impliment the wirebreak mod because of the unique qualities of the UUV)

I can't wait to play around with this in a game myself. :)

Cheers,
David

[Bellman]

Stands back in amazement ! :rock: Well thats 100% more than I thought would be possible. :|\
The performance and controlability sound nicely judged David. This is going to be one heck of a surgical tool.
It will make GR sniping seem tame !

Cant wait to get my hands on this one ! What with this and the torp upgrades things are really looking good.
All leave here cancelled for the next week (or so) !!

[LuftWolf]

Just to let you guys know.

I have encountered a game-engine related problem.

For some reason,, the active sensor on the UUV works in the sense that it detects things according to the debugger and is also counter detected on active intercept by AI, however, the UUV does not report active tracks to the user and also does not show up on user active intercept. :-?

I suspect this is related to the other problems in 1.03 with enable/preenable behavior for torpedo type weapons and the REMRO/ESM irregularities with the FFG.

So, in short, there is not going to be active sonar on the UUV until this gets resolved by SCS. :cry:

I need everyone to try to remember if they have EVER gotten an active track on the UUV and if they have ever gotten one in stock DW 1.03 or LWAMI 3.02 using a UUV!

So?

[Amizaur]

Sounds great ! I always though the UUV capabilities in DW are just pitiful. What you wrote is how it should work from the very beginning :-).
Few thoughs - I'm not sure an UUV should have torpedo-type active sonar seeker. Unless there are known real -world UUVs that have such sub-detecting sonars (because you are not supposed to detec a mine with it).I'm under impression that real world existing UUVs are using rather high-frequency imaging sonar for mine detecting, not medium frequency targeting sonar... Maybe it should have only very high frequency and passive sensors, or it can be too good ! and as a result you can't hide from it, can't kill it (!!!) and have no idea where it's mother ship is untill torpedo arrives...
Not sure about 20kts speed, maybe 15kts instead ? But it's only my feeling... I suspect UUVs have propulsion optimised for slow running.
Are real american UUVs torpedo-based (Mk-37?) or new construction ? Is it known what speed and range do they have ? Of course sensors should work ONLY in slow mode. Range can be dependant (highly dependant) on speed, so slow mode range would be 2x of burst speed range (or rather burst speed range 2x shorter than normal slow mode range). It can be made same way as with torpedos.
About 32km range - I always thought that original DW UUV range is just pitifull :-) UUVs are said to have dosens of hours endurance, even at 2kts speed it gives reasonable range. I think it could have even greater range at low speeds, if it was little limited in capability (HF & passive sonar only) and speed. You could make recon in enemy port from 20-30nm out :-).Luftwolf, wasn't there a hard-coded time limit for UUV mission ? Or was it just range-limited ? About sub maneuvering limitations - don't think it's wrong, this kind of mission rather don't require high speed maneuvers, you just lanuch your UUV from good stand-off and wait in cover.

P.S. After a while, I think that UUV should have assigned in DB not HF sonar, as it only gives marks, not tracks, but instead "normal" active sonar just tuned for very high frequency so range would be highlly reduced, but detecting capability inside working ranger very good.

[LuftWolf]

The UUV is strictly range limited, no time limit. :)

BTW, I can confirm that the active sonar feedback issue with the UUV is related STRICTLY to 1.03, and will not be a problem after the next patch.

For now, I'm going to disable the active enable feature entirely on the UUV. :up:

Cheers,
David

[Bellman]

I should'nt lose sleep on UUV active mode, at this stage, as implementing it would in effect make a
quantam leap forward and impinge heavily on gameplay. It is more than enough (for now ;) ) to have a
passive stealth tool, which with its deployment performance characteristics, creates a wealth of
exciting new tactical possibilities.

[Amizaur]

Just to let you guys know.

For some reason,, the active sensor on the UUV works in the sense that it detects things according to the debugger and is also counter detected on active intercept by AI, however, the UUV does not report active tracks to the user and also does not show up on user active intercept. :-?

:o do you mean modded UUV, or even normal stock UUV doesn't give active intercept return ?? It definitely did in earlier versions of the game...

[LuftWolf]

I should'nt lose sleep on UUV active mode as implementing that would in effect make a quantam leap forward
and impinge heavily on gameplay. It is more than enough to have a passive stealth tool which with its deployment
performance characteristics creates a wealth of new tactical possibilities.

Ok, sounds good to me. As it is, any reasonable implementation of the UUV active sonar would give you a really good picture of whats going on around the unit in terms of torpedoes etc... you would be able to see torpedoes quite clearly on the UUV, provided you have it oriented correctly.

The changes for this version of LWAMI are going to be very very significant, and I don't want some kind of major imbalance to tilt things without getting a feel for what we've got... so perhaps this is a blessing in disguise right now. :)

Cheers,
David

PS A part of me *still* wants it to work exactly to my vision. :know: :P

[LuftWolf]

Progress has been solid but some of my time has been eaten up bug-testing unexpectedly.

I have a couple more things to do to wrap this up, but I have to go to work now.

The playtest will be ready tonight/tomorrow. :up:

Thanks guys! :up: :rock:

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

That's great, but it's science fiction. Any fleet actually interested in realism, would ban the use of any UUVs like that.

That's an odd thing to read, just as I was about to create a Second Generation UUV.

The LWAMI playtest that is going to be released today, will feature an upgraded UUV.

SeaQueen, I like pushing the sim to the limits of what is possible. It is entirely possible to have a good UUV. I'm sure if it were as easy as it is for me to make one in DW, the government would put them on all their submarines as soon as possible.

That's why I mod DW. :)

Creating a mod or a game/sim is not simply plugging in values and writing code, sometimes its just about creating a world in some ways more ideal than the real one.

Cheers,
David

sigh.

I'm about 80% with SQ on this one. I wouldn't remove it, but a downgrade seems more appropriate than an upgrade, since what we have is already well outside the bounds of what we should have.

Edit: as senstive as a Xia spherical sensor? Sounds like this is exactly the kind of downgrade I was hoping for...

[LuftWolf]

So...

Should I make the UUV better or worse?

(Still chewing on the wirelimit test doctrine... working 12+ hours a day in the real world on big boy things...)

A little of both. =)

Decrease sensitivity, increase non-cavitating NL, increase cavitation depth, increase range (battery time and/or speed), add variable depth capability.

I don't suppose you can make up your fridgickin mind. :x

Upgraded mission capability with sensors that actually make sense realitve to the other sensors in the game... that's what I've done.

Right now, under the layer, in moderate acoustic conditions, the UUV picks up a 688i going 14 kts at about 5.5nm or so... while the 688i sphere picks up the same contact at about 7nm. Edit: Corrected the last range, I had it a little high before.

Very quiet contacts aren't going to be picked up on the UUV at all, even very close, and very loud contacts will be detected quite clearly, even at long range.

I'm back at my post.

No sleep 'til distribution! :rock:

Cheers,
David

[SeaQueen]

sigh.

I'm about 80% with SQ on this one. I wouldn't remove it, but a downgrade seems more appropriate than an upgrade, since what we have is already well outside the bounds of what we should have.


At least someone still loves me. :cry:

[Bellman]

ML: Typical Lawyer speak :D - You claim (to the jury) that you are 80% in agreement with SQ - in toto ?
Or are you cherry picking ? Yep I think so because in fact you approve of 80% of the range/speed/depth proposals.

So we are left with sonar performance which is the real issue. I am not in possession of all of the facts but
we have an opportunity to test-bed concepts which can attempt to consolidate reality with effective gameplay.
Heck is that Lawyer speak too !! :o

Edit: A 'night-watchman' eh ? :roll: :lol: There will always be a red carpet in my 'Yellow Submarine' SQ.
(+ well stocked drinks cabinet)

[LuftWolf]

Well, rest assured... the sensitivity of the UUV passive sonar has been MUCH reduced.

This should make it much more useful, as your screen won't be clouded up by so many useless contacts in a busy environment, making the job of interpreting the UUV data a more sim-oriented task, rather than just weeding through a mess of white lines.

[LuftWolf]

The playtest is finished. :)

I just have to write the Playtest Version Readme and create the distribution.

After a very short break. :up:

Cheers,
David

PS :rock: :rock: :rock:

[Molon Labe]

ML: Typical Lawyer speak :D - You claim (to the jury) that you are 80% in agreement with SQ - in toto ?
Or are you cherry picking ? Yep I think so because in fact you approve of 80% of the range/speed/depth proposals.

So we are left with sonar performance which is the real issue. I am not in possession of all of the facts but
we have an opportunity to test-bed concepts which can attempt to consolidate reality with effective gameplay.
Heck is that Lawyer speak too !! :o

Edit: A 'night-watchman' eh ? :roll: :lol: There will always be a red carpet in my 'Yellow Submarine' SQ.
(+ well stocked drinks cabinet)

Well I can't say total agreement, because I didn't want to ditch the sensor altogether! But not that it's apparent that in terms of performance, this is a downgrade, I'm probably in favor of the changes...

[SeaQueen]

Well I can't say total agreement, because I didn't want to ditch the sensor altogether! But not that it's apparent that in terms of performance, this is a downgrade, I'm probably in favor of the changes...

I don't want to ditch the UUV. I just wish that it was patterned more closely after an existing UUV, the LMRS. As it stands, it's one of the least believable objects in the game.

I'm also not in principle against a "second generation" UUV, so long as it was also patterned off of a real potential future system and has some kind of reasonable way of representing it in gameplay. I think trying to do something Sea Talon-like would actually be very cool.

I just worry that "pushing the limits" is a euphemism for developing super weapons, which no future system is.

[Amizaur]

I don't want to ditch the UUV. I just wish that it was patterned more closely after an existing UUV, the LMRS. As it stands, it's one of the least believable objects in the game.

I searched for LMRS (finding Little Martian Robots program on google ;) ) and see that's fully autonomous vehicle (no wire) so it can't transmit sonar data to mother ship, and it probably don't have passive sonar, only HF forward looking and bottom imaging sonars, it's meaned to do mine reconnaissance mission ONLY, it can't be useable in sub vs sub mission at all ! It definitely is not the vehicle we are modelling in the game... is there something other closer to in-game UUV ??

[Bellman]

Post edited out following the contemporaneous release of the latest LwAmi Playtest. !

[Deathblow]

It definitely is not the vehicle we are modelling in the game... is there something other closer to in-game UUV ??

No, there's not. Time to change the name of the mod to LW&A Fantasy Land Mod. :yep: :lol:

20knot top speed for a uuv? :nope:

[Molon Labe]

I just worry that "pushing the limits" is a euphemism for developing super weapons, which no future system is.

Now there's something I can agree with completely!

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I searched for LMRS (finding Little Martian Robots program on google ;) ) and see that's fully autonomous vehicle (no wire) so it can't transmit sonar data to mother ship, and it probably don't have passive sonar, only HF forward looking and bottom imaging sonars, it's meaned to do mine reconnaissance mission ONLY, it can't be useable in sub vs sub mission at all ! It definitely is not the vehicle we are modelling in the game... is there something other closer to in-game UUV ??

How is that darn toy going to tell me about mines without the wire? Am I supposed to recover it manually and somehow edge it into a torp tube or something?

[TLAM Strike]

I searched for LMRS (finding Little Martian Robots program on google ;) ) and see that's fully autonomous vehicle (no wire) so it can't transmit sonar data to mother ship, and it probably don't have passive sonar, only HF forward looking and bottom imaging sonars, it's meaned to do mine reconnaissance mission ONLY, it can't be useable in sub vs sub mission at all ! It definitely is not the vehicle we are modelling in the game... is there something other closer to in-game UUV ??

How is that darn toy going to tell me about mines without the wire? Am I supposed to recover it manually and somehow edge it into a torp tube or something?
Acoustic datalink.

The other tube on that side would have a remote controled arm loaded in it to place it at the entrance of the tube. The UUV would then “crawl” in to the tube.

[Amizaur]

Acoustic datalink.


Are you sure ? And if so, isn't the acoustic datalink used only in docking procedures, so close to ownship ? I've read that the LMRS reports data about what it found (mines) by periodic surfacing and estabilishing a satelite RF link... anyway it doesn't have any sub-detecting sensors as it's specialised in anti-mine warfare... short range imaging (or rather mapping) sensors...

[TLAM Strike]

Acoustic datalink.


Are you sure ? And if so, isn't the acoustic datalink used only in docking procedures, so close to ownship ? I've read that the LMRS reports data about what it found (mines) by periodic surfacing and estabilishing a satelite RF link... anyway it doesn't have any sub-detecting sensors as it's specialised in anti-mine warfare... short range imaging (or rather mapping) sensors... Maybe. I know Acoustic Datalinks are what everyone is working on.

[Bellman]

What I find 100% unbelievable is that a Mk 48 stripped of ts explosive charge but with extant
sonar cant easily be adapted for 'search only' tasks. We need look no further. If folk are not happy
labelling it a UUV call it Mk 48 Probe !

The subject of UUVs is I'm sure highly classified so the bull**** reasoning of the anti-Star Wars brigades
is quite vacuous. We are used to military hardware emerging long after 'sightings' and 'reports.'
Such hardware always ''pushed the limits.'' :P

That there is a need for adaptive ASW tools is self-evident. That developments exist beyond common
knowledge is clear. That authorities would suppress any such information, natural . Opponents
of the development of the sims UUV stand on the same quicksands of doubt and uncertainty
as the proponents.

An analysis of all the unreal elements in DW would be revealing. But to deny marginal improvements to
existing technology is Luddite. Some such voices, one suspects, have a vested interest !

[LuftWolf]

It definitely is not the vehicle we are modelling in the game... is there something other closer to in-game UUV ??

No, there's not. Time to change the name of the mod to LW&A Fantasy Land Mod. :yep: :lol:

20knot top speed for a uuv? :nope:

So you don't think something with an electric motor the size of a torpedo could go 20kts?

Of course, not with its sensors working, at least with reasonable sensitivity. Anyway, I think our naval engineers could make something like that, considering the MK50 can make around 50-55 kts, and its a LWT.

This a playtest, so if you want to be stupid about your comments then don't participate. :know:

Otherwise, I appreciate all the feedback you can give. :up:

[SeaQueen]

I searched for LMRS (finding Little Martian Robots program on google ;) ) and see that's fully autonomous vehicle (no wire) so it can't transmit sonar data to mother ship,


I wouldn't worry about that. If you COULD stick in a bunch of waypoints and somehow get the data later that'd be great, but if not, oh well.


and it probably don't have passive sonar, only HF forward looking and bottom imaging sonars, it's meaned to do mine reconnaissance mission ONLY, it can't be useable in sub vs sub mission at all !


It could, just not particularly effectively.

is there something other closer to in-game UUV ??

The only thing closer is the NMRS which is just like the LMRS but it's not autonomous. It's wire guided. It's exactly the same idea.

There's lots of people at university and corporate engineering labs who have "prototype" UUVs that might be promising for a lot of stuff in the future, but right now the problems they're trying to solve are very fundamental.

It's also unclear precisely how they'd be used. The only one I've seen which had a real purpose was the one you might have seen on the Sea Talon website which just laid distributed sensor nets on the sea bottom. This one does not exist yet, and nobody is really certain they even want to buy it.

None of the ones intended for launch from torpedo tubes are likely to be useful for ASW. The big limitation on these things, particularly the torpedo tube launched ones, is that they are limited by their physical size. Smaller sonars have to operate in higher frequency ranges because of the wavelengths of sound they respond best to. Higher frequencies are attentuated in the ocean more strongly. Hence, a torpedo sensor is very high frequency and shouldn't be able to see very far at all.

If you were to create a UUV with high speed and a torpedo sensor then it should have all of the drawbacks of a torpedo (TIW, loud broadband signature, etc.) if that was the case, why didn't you just launch a torpedo?

There is some experimentation with launching larger UUVs from dry deck shelters. There was recently an article in Undersea Warfare Magazine about using a DDS to launch an oceanographic glider. The problem there is mostly that there's not a lot of DDSes and not every boat is equipped to carry them.

[LuftWolf]

How does a dipping sonar or sonobuoy overcome even more restrictive size limitations?

I think heavyweight torpedoes are MUCH larger than a dipping sonar or a sonobuoy. ;)

All I'm really hearing from this conversation is: it's possible but there hasn't been any serious investment.

I think we all understand what the real life limitations of current UUV's are, but the more pressing conversation is what should we do for gameplay and is what's done for the playtest working the way you want it to.

[Bellman]

SQ: Its only recently within MP that the information drizzled out from a senior player that the UUV could be launched
silently. Many of us managed quite well to cope with the TIW limitations by well timed/located launches prior to that.

So in answer to your why not just launch a torp - because a Mk 2 UUV will have more flexible speed options
than a torp. It will stop and sleep and presumably be relatively invisible in that mode. Some pertinent questions are -
Can sutable batteries and power source be accomodated in say a Mk 48 case ? Would such provide the performance
planned ? Could existing, or shoe-horned in alternatives, provide a stop/start (sleep) operational facility ?
These dont seem to me like 'Star-Wars' issues but good 'ole 20th. Century engineering ones !!

The speed (depth) options and 'sleep' mode provide plenty of tactical options from ''known'' hardware
so your boffins can hold their sonar cards tight eh ?

[Bellman]

LW: My take on this development is that you accomodate only a small shuffle forward leaving aside sensitive' sonar issues.
If you gave us a quasi-torpedo with probe potential/s. Sonar equivalent but no better than, sqy a Mk 48.
variable speed, depth and stop/start ('Sleep' mode) Careful consideration must be given to top speed and max.
range - IMO both these are too high in the present Playtester version.

I think we can justify such changes arising from real world current equipment availabilities.
Playtesting will assess the impact on the game.

One further point. It is distressing, as a LwAmi enthusiast, to report that my experience of MP recently
indicates that in the majority of cases the host opts for a Stock game. ML put his finger on one cause which
was the lag in most gamers appreciating the effect of recent changes. Many old stock maps are playable
and enjoyable in LwAmi but the prejudice persists. I firmly believe UUV Mk 2 can be the prop for these gamers
to tackle larger maps with confidence.

[LuftWolf]

Ok, I'm home sick with the flu, so maybe I'm going to try to get the new ADCAP and UGST ATC doctrines merged with the advanced torpedo physics, add their appropriate under-keel detonation and wakehoming modes, as well as reconfigure the wire length mod and enable points to use True Run rather than x-y range from launchpoint, AND set the torpedo to use the ceiling feature to select ASuW or ASW modes.

THEN I can check the doctrines that Amizaur created for the other playable torpedoes, and make generic doctrines for the AI.

Here is how I am planning on handling all AI torpedoes. The AI will always use the minimum range and max speed settings for the weapon. The torpedoes WILL slow down when deep (for non-electric) but will not lose range. I think that is a fair compromise between allowing the AI to fire using a middle or compromise range and speed setting and not having the physics work at all.

In terms of the Advanced Sensor Modelling, I am having doubts about how the ADCAP single-beam mod will work with the way the game uses the torpedo and torphoming doctrines together. In order for the torpedoes to start searching again after they burn through decoys or otherwise lose their track, it is necessary to disable a variable in the torpedo doctrine, so that the torphoming doctrine simply overrides the main torpedo doctrine, and there is no state change in the torpedo doctrine for homing that I could use reliably to change sensor modes from search to homing. In addition, it wouldn't really add much to the game, and I'd have to include a snake control as well for those who want to use it in that mode. All in all, I don't think its worth it at this time, there is much too much else on the plate at the moment.

However, I am going to try to change all the sensors from hardcap to sensitivity limited. :up:

[Amizaur]

I'm going to try to get the new ADCAP and UGST ATC doctrines merged with the advanced torpedo physics

I'm not sure if I wouln't chose the other way - took a ATP mod and add ATC and other mods to it... well figure out what would be more simple. I hope the way I wrote them (modded parts clearly separated from the rest of doctrine) makes work easier.

add their appropriate under-keel detonation

?? are they back ?

as well as reconfigure the wire length mod and enable points to use True Run rather than x-y range from launchpoint,
true run counter is already in ATP mod, it is needed there, maybe better to take those doctrines as a base. But it's up to you.

AND set the torpedo to use the ceiling feature to select ASuW or ASW modes.

This was really brilliant idea, I was so sticked to in-game "ceiling definition" that didn't notice this simple, realistic and in fact more reliable way of doing that :-) That ASW torps can simply IGNORE surface contacts, instead of tracking them to pass under them...

THEN I can check the doctrines that Amizaur created for the other playable torpedoes, and make generic doctrines for the AI.

Well, that's also why I think to take ATP mods as a base. ATC mod will probably be used for all wire-guided torps (I think the controls are so basic, that even TEST-71 has them), the avoid-friendly-fire mod in all of them too, same for other small changes. They can be taken as a nearly universal "package" of text blocks. But in various ATP doctrines for different torps, different mod options are used and in fact those doctrines are quite different one from the other. I feel it would be easier to implement all older mods + ATC to new ATP doctrines, than the other way, but again do what you find easier yourself.

Here is how I am planning on handling all AI torpedoes. The AI will always use the minimum range and max speed settings for the weapon. The torpedoes WILL slow down when deep (for non-electric) but will not lose range. I think that is a fair compromise between allowing the AI to fire using a middle or compromise range and speed setting and not having the physics work at all.

Well as you probably guess I'm against such unrealistic artificial compromises... I think it would be possible to program good firing evenlope for AI torpedos and program it into SubAtkSomething doctrines.
And well it's not so simple to just "keep" the range, doctrine simulates torpedo fuel and fuel usage. Everything depends on something else - speed on depth, range on speed and also on depth... To keep max range with lowered speed you would have to increase fuel amount at depth, or alter fuel flow routine, or make whole second separate fuel calculations code just for AI torpedos... Of course possible... but once again complicates the doctrine... for each launched torp. I vote for same torpedo physics for all subs (AI or human) and instead programming correct (as human would do) attack profiles for AI launched torpedos - cruise shallow (even if launched deep) and go to target depth only at enable. Much more realistic and tactics for evading AI shots and human player shots would be the same, not different. Range of AI shots would not be affected much in this case (most of the run is shallow), and averaged cruise speed too.

Or - ultimate solution - in addition to above, to program also correct attack ranges into SubAtkSub doctrine. For each weapon.

In terms of the Advanced Sensor Modelling, I am having doubts about how the ADCAP single-beam mod will work with the way the game uses the torpedo and torphoming doctrines together.

I don't feel one wide sensor cone for ADCAP would be bad. Some sources even says that it works this way - just like radars with phased array antenna - almost instantaneous search of whoole sensor cone.

I'd have to include a snake control as well for those who want to use it in that mode.

Maybe don't remove snake mode for ADCAP - just give it wide sensor cone with small, +/- 10deg (or other barely noticeable) snake pattern left, just enaugh to see if torp is homing or searching ? If it's sneaking a little, then it's searching, but the snake is so small that it almost doesn't affect average speed and max range. Of course planned sensor cone is decreased by this little snake value (5 or 10deg each side). I think setting 5deg snake results in about +/- 7...10deg true snake, as snake value determines when the rudder is switched to other side, but torpedo has it's inertia in turn and snake is wider than set value.

[TLAM Strike]

It definitely is not the vehicle we are modelling in the game... is there something other closer to in-game UUV ??

No, there's not. Time to change the name of the mod to LW&A Fantasy Land Mod. :yep: :lol:

20knot top speed for a uuv? :nope:

So you don't think something with an electric motor the size of a torpedo could go 20kts? The old MK 18s of yore could do 29 knots. I think we've come a long way since the days of Fluckey and O'Kane so a 20 knot electric UUV isn't far fetched.

LW and AMI your doing a great job. I've playied a few single player missions with the new ADCAP and UUV and I've found them to be very impressive. :up:

But I'm still waiting on my improved TEST-71s. ;)

[Deathblow]

It definitely is not the vehicle we are modelling in the game... is there something other closer to in-game UUV ??

No, there's not. Time to change the name of the mod to LW&A Fantasy Land Mod. :yep: :lol:

20knot top speed for a uuv? :nope:

So you don't think something with an electric motor the size of a torpedo could go 20kts?

Of course, not with its sensors working, at least with reasonable sensitivity. Anyway, I think our naval engineers could make something like that, considering the MK50 can make around 50-55 kts, and its a LWT.

This a playtest, so if you want to be stupid about your comments then don't participate. :know:

Otherwise, I appreciate all the feedback you can give. :up:

Hey, my comments are insightful!.... or do I mean... inciteful? :hmm: :-j The uuv performance currently prescribed are without any basis ... That is all I am saying.

I think we all understand what the real life limitations of current UUV's are, but the more pressing conversation is what should we do for gameplay.

Model the RL limitations of UUV. :yep: As I am not a MP and ultimately kitbash anything and everthing in sight anyway, I shant say anything more on the matter ... until the next time of course. :P

:)

[LuftWolf]

The choices are remove the UUV entirely, or upgrade it along the lines I have done.

Leaving it as a 4kts mobile TB-29 is not acceptable. :down:

So in short, the conversation about improving the UUV is over. If you don't like the improved UUV, don't use LWAMI, don't use the new UUV, and/or ask that your opponents do the same.

I don't have time to debate about old news. ;)

[TLAM Strike]

The choices are remove the UUV entirely, or upgrade it along the lines I have done.

Or option 3: A MOSS for the US boats and the MG-74 Korund for Ivan.

[LuftWolf]

The UUV is a hardcoded loadout. I can't differentiate between Russian and American. :shifty:

[LuftWolf]

Amizaur, my philosophy on the AI has been to put enough work into it to make it better, but because of other pressing issues, not doing so much that the player would never realize what has been done.

In other words, the AI needs to be improved, but the diminishing returns in putting in complex behaviors that are really turn out to be window dressing in many cases and do nothing to make the AI more effective (and may even reduce the effectiveness), and most players won't even notice anyway, kick in fairly quickly in DW.

I think the best solution is a one-size-fits all alteration to the database, making separate AI weapons with fool-proof settings like in the LWAMI 3.02 database. The other option is to go into the doctrines and specify everything for every platform and every weapon. Honestly, I think the mean effectiveness of the AI would be about the same in both cases, but the workload in making database alterations as opposed to doctrine alterations is something like 1/4 of the work, and really requires very minimal testing.

On top of that, there would be a lot of judgement about how the AI sets what and when. I like the idea of a shallowrunout with a deep enable for ASW targets, but creating unique subatksub doctrines for each playable AND NON-playable (and this would also necessitation special doctrines for each AI weapon) is just too much work for too little gain, in my opinion.

I want an AI that can fire weapons at targets and hit them reliably. In LWAMI 3.02 we had that. And we still have that in Playtest One. Once the Advanced Torpedo Physics are fully implimented, the ability of the AI to hit things with torpedoes will once again go down. I think the least number of changes that give the AI reasonable effectiveness while still retaining the essential aspects of the Advanced Physics is the best solution. The AI can do a lot of decision making on its own, the more we try to interfere with that, our workload goes up exponentially, and the gains become fractional.

PS That having been said, maybe once we are into it, we'll see it isn't so much work, but at this point, I have a fairly clear plan about what needs to be done and in what order to maintain consistency in the Mod, and, most importantly, our own sanity. :lol:

[TLAM Strike]

The UUV is a hardcoded loadout. I can't differentiate between Russian and American. :shifty:

But the 688 and Akula Imp have several tonals in common, 125, 320, 1100 and the SW and Akula II have 1125 in common. How would a 55 hz base tonal work out? Sufficiently close to fool the computer/player? The Kilo might be kinda screwed as they have very different signatures, but as a Kilo player I would like my opponent think there is a Akula lurking near by.

[LuftWolf]

The UUV is a hardcoded loadout. I can't differentiate between Russian and American. :shifty:

But the 688 and Akula Imp have several tonals in common, 125, 320, 1100 and the SW and Akula II have 1125 in common. How would a 55 hz base tonal work out? Sufficiently close to fool the computer/player? The Kilo might be kinda screwed as they have very different signatures, but as a Kilo player I would like my opponent think there is a Akula lurking near by.

I don't understand what you are getting at, TLAM. :hmm:

[TLAM Strike]

The UUV is a hardcoded loadout. I can't differentiate between Russian and American. :shifty:

But the 688 and Akula Imp have several tonals in common, 125, 320, 1100 and the SW and Akula II have 1125 in common. How would a 55 hz base tonal work out? Sufficiently close to fool the computer/player? The Kilo might be kinda screwed as they have very different signatures, but as a Kilo player I would like my opponent think there is a Akula lurking near by.

I don't understand what you are getting at, TLAM. :hmm: The 688(i) and Akula Imp have very close acoustic signatures. Could giving a UUV the tonals that are alike and remove the tonals that are not alike and maybe giving them a 55 hz tonal could it fool the player or computer?

[LuftWolf]

I could change the tonals for the UUV, sure.

The player would simply have those new tonals displayed on sonar.

In terms of the AI, its not going to affect its ability to recognize the UUV at all. It uses a probably of classification, rather than the acoustic engine tonals.

[TLAM Strike]

I could change the tonals for the UUV, sure.

The player would simply have those new tonals displayed on sonar.

In terms of the AI, its not going to affect its ability to recognize the UUV at all. It uses a probably of classification, rather than the acoustic engine tonals. I ment the Computer filter on the NB screen.

[LuftWolf]

If the base tonal is different from all other platforms, then it will be the only platform to show up.

So, with a 55hz base tonal, the UUV will be instantly recognizable.

[TLAM Strike]

If the base tonal is different from all other platforms, then it will be the only platform to show up.

So, with a 55hz base tonal, the UUV will be instantly recognizable. What if the base tonal was 125? Would all platforms with a 125 tonal show up even if its not their base tonal? :hmm:

[LuftWolf]

Beats me... I've haven't really done much with the sonar profiles.

That wouldn't really be a good tonal for a base, however.

[TLAM Strike]

Beats me... I've haven't really done much with the sonar profiles.

That wouldn't really be a good tonal for a base, however. Why not its the 1st tonal in common with the US and Russian playables?

[LuftWolf]

I'm by no means an expert, but a base tonal should represent the harmonic frequency of its electrics, which would be either 50hz or 60hz.

[Deathblow]

The choices are remove the UUV entirely, or upgrade it along the lines I have done.

Leaving it as a 4kts mobile TB-29 is not acceptable. :down:

So in short, the conversation about improving the UUV is over. If you don't like the improved UUV, don't use LWAMI, don't use the new UUV, and/or ask that your opponents do the same.

I don't have time to debate about old news. ;)

Hey I'm the one that originally brought light to the issue in the first place remember?

I agree, people probably won't be playing LWAMI... they'll be playing LWAM-FLM. :yep: :lol:

j/k :-j i.e. lighten up

ps) who the heck is proposing that uuvs be left as original?.... everyone has pretty much said the opposite, including myself

[SeaQueen]

How does a dipping sonar or sonobuoy overcome even more restrictive size limitations?


They don't. Neither of them can see very far. They're short ranged sensors.

You can potentially search a large area with a dipper by physically moving the sensor, due to the high speed of the helo. Hence, helos with dippers have a relatively high search rate, in spite of relatively short ranged sensor.

Sonobuoys can't see very far at all either. You search large areas by dropping lots of them in a pattern, and counting on the relatively high speed of your aircraft to allow you cover the space quickly, hence you get a high search rate but a short sensor range.


All I'm really hearing from this conversation is: it's possible but there hasn't been any serious investment.


Actually there's been quite a lot, just that it's all as research and development. It's more like there's a lot of interest, but exactly what they want to do is very poorly defined. UUVs in the future will almost certainly hunt for mines, and gather oceanographic data. That much is basically a done deal. They've already proven their utility for that. As ASW weapons, though, it's not so clear exactly how they'd be used. They're very limited in a lot of ways. The ones that are least limited leave you wondering why they didn't just build another submarine, mine or torpedo. The rest, while more limited in their capabilities, have serious technical or operational difficulties that they're working on overcoming (hence lots of R&D), but it isn't clear whether they'll proove their usefulness in the end or not. These are the sorts that might be doing things like deploying sea bottom sensors or what not (like in the Sea Talon video). The more ambitious they claim a given protoype is, the less I believe they'll actually pull it off.

[TLAM Strike]

I'm by no means an expert, but a base tonal should represent the harmonic frequency of its electrics, which would be either 50hz or 60hz. Yes but we're talking about something that can generate whatever tonals it wants and something we want to fool the player which means we might have to bend a few rules.

[LuftWolf]

Well, everyone at least do me the favor of trying the new UUV before you comment on what I've done with it.

SQ, yes. So its my duty to set the sensitivity of the UUV to be consistent with the dipping sonar and the sonobuoys, adjusting for the fact that it is a whole generation head of the MH60 dipping sonar and VLAD and also is the size of a HWT, meaning it has the potential to be MORE sensitive that dipping sonar or sonobuoys.

Try it... I think you'll find the sensitivity to be both good for gameplay and consistent with other in-game sensors that people have been pretty happy with now for some time.

[LuftWolf]

I'm by no means an expert, but a base tonal should represent the harmonic frequency of its electrics, which would be either 50hz or 60hz. Yes but we're talking about something that can generate whatever tonals it wants and something we want to fool the player which means we might have to bend a few rules.

I'm really hesitant to make the base tonal of the UUV something other than 50hz or 60hz. Also, if I make the first tonal 125, the computer is smart enough to see that there is no 50 or 60hz tonal, and will instantly recognize the UUV anyway, so it won't accomplish what I think you are looking to do.

[OKO]

I need everyone to try to remember if they have EVER gotten an active track on the UUV and if they have ever gotten one in stock DW 1.03 or LWAMI 3.02 using a UUV!

So?

I'm absolutly sure I was
Heard it from my own UUV and from others UUV
I'm late in this thread, need to read all of it, I just answered this question quickly because i'm sure active UUV was detected by active intercept before ... some times before I can't remember when exactly.

[OKO]

Well, rest assured... the sensitivity of the UUV passive sonar has been MUCH reduced.


that's right to me
i couldn't see how a so small sonar could have the capabilities of a spherical array.
not really the same size and sophistications.

[OKO]

[quote=LuftWolf]
:o do you mean modded UUV, or even normal stock UUV doesn't give active intercept return ?? It definitely did in earlier versions of the game...

100% agree
I don't know from what version it stopped to be like this.

[LuftWolf]

I need everyone to try to remember if they have EVER gotten an active track on the UUV and if they have ever gotten one in stock DW 1.03 or LWAMI 3.02 using a UUV!

So?

I'm absolutly sure I was
Heard it from my own UUV and from others UUV
I'm late in this thread, need to read all of it, I just answered this question quickly because i'm sure active UUV was detected by active intercept before ... some times before I can't remember when exactly.

OKO, don't worry, I already solved that one. The active sonar on the UUV is broken in 1.03 only, and is fine in other version of DW, so it should be fine after the patch, since SCS has said it will address the feedback issues with ownship and remote sensors like torpedoes and the REMRO on the MH60.

[OKO]

great
sorry I post so much little thread, but I didn't read this forum for some times (I was away) and actually try to answer things I know as I read the whole thing.

[LuftWolf]

All you need to do is go to the CADC and download the playtest. :)

And then let me know what you think. ;)

http://www.orionwarrior.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29521

To Install: Unzip the file into your main DW directory allowing the unzip program to overwrite all files and install to the correct directories.
This playtest should be considered a beta. It combines LWAMI 3.02 with the following changes:
Advanced Torpedo Control Mod for UGST and ADCAP:
Set the torpedo to fire as normal. If you don't use the wire commands, it will behave as always. The wirecontrol commands are now as follows. Note, you must wait at least a second of game time between clicks, but it is possible to hit the button several times to go through the cycle quickly. A single preenable click will preenable the torpedo if it is enabled or do nothing. A second preenable click will send the torpedo to the preset search depth. A third click will send the torpedo to the ceiling. A fourth click will send the torpedo back to launch depth. The enable button works as follows. A single enable click will set the torpedo speed to 40kts and enable the passive sensor. A second click will enable the active seeker on the torpedo and set the speed to max speed. Further clicks of the enable button have no effect on the torpedo unless it is preenabled again, and then the behavior is reset to the beginning of the enable cycle.
WireBreak Mod:
Wires are now limited in range and ownship maneovering parameters. The ADCAP has a 10nm internal wire and a 5nm wire on the launching platform. If the torpedo or ownship travel farther than those distance FROM THE LAUNCH POINT, or if the range between ownship and the torpedo exceeds that distance, the wire will break. The UGST has a 25km internal wire and a 5km wire on the launching platform. Additionally, if the opening speed between ownship and the torpedo exceeds about 60kts for the ADCAP or 55kts for the UGST, with ownship movement accounting for no more than 20kts of that calculation, the wire will break. These maneovering measurements are unintentionally fuzzy, however, it is something that occurs naturally that I was going to build in anyway, so it works nicely. :-) What this means in practical terms is that a slow running torpedo gives the launching platform much more flexibility in maneovering the ship, whereas a torpedo running at maxspeed is much more prone to a maneovering-related wirebreak. NOTE: When the wire is broken, its broken. However, sometimes the interface will momentarily display the torpedo as preenabled, but it reenables soon enough not to effect the game in any way. The only unfinished part is that you can still shutdown the torpedo even after the wire is broken... we can't take this out. However, it is very minor, in my opinion, seeing as the user would typically reload his tube after the wires are broken anyway. ;-)
Advanced UUV Mod:
The UUV is much more quiet now, and is very hard to detect without cavitation. The passive sensor has been reduced in sensitivity considerably and the active sensor has been disabled completely (mostly because its broken in DW 1.03). The UUV now has a range of 32km and max speed of 20kts, with the sensors effective up to 6-8kts, with washout above 6kts. The operation is as follows. You must be at 4kts as before, and enter the presets in the same way. After firing the weapon it will begin to feed back data immediately and move at 4kts. The speed of the UUV is controlled with the enable button and the depth is controlled with the preenable button. The preenable button has no effect on the passive sensor. One click of the enable button will stop the UUV; it can persist indefinately in this state (although I will most likely have a timer on it in the full version), a second click will speed the UUV up to 6kts. A third click of the enable button will speed the UUV up to 12kts, the max speed the UUV can travel in up to 90ft of water without cavitating. A fourth click of the enable button and the UUV will go to its max speed of 20kts. A fifth click will stop the UUV and reset the counter, although you can click the enable button twice slowly and set it to 6kts. Note the sensors are washout above 8kts and do not feed data. The preenable button depth control works as follows. A single click does nothing. A second preenable click will send the UUV to the preset search depth. A third preenable click will send the UUV to 90ft if it is in over 100ft of water or 45ft if it is in less than 100ft of water. A fourth click will send the UUV back to launch depth, and reset the cycle.
SLAM-ER and Misc. Missiles:
The SLAM-ER now works for ASuW use and will enable a radar seeker at the last waypoint if it is over water. If the last waypoint is over land, the missile will operate in Strike mode, and behave as a light TLAM. The missile has a stealth enable feature that sends it down to just above the ocean before enabling and then after enabling it rising back to its cruising altitude of 30ft. Note, the standard harpoon has also been giving this cruising altitude, and the flight profiles of various missiles have been lowered. Also, the standard SLAM has been fixed and equipped on the AI P-3 as a land attack missile because the AI can't use the SLAM-ER properly. The AI P-3 does carry the Harpoon for ASuW. The Harpoon and the SLAM-ER both have a 40 Radar PSL, which is very low.
Helicopters:
I have attempted to fixed several problems like crashing and reporting contacts at launch, as well as dragging the active dipping sonar. Please use the FFG AI MH60 as well as observe helo behavior in general. :-) Also, the MH60 no longer launches with its radar on. :-)
CIWSAttack Doctrine has been updated to give better intercept performance will allowing for appropriate missile conservation for sustained attacks.
I made a minor change to the TLAM doctrine to make sure it always explode near the target as opposed to disappearing if it overshoots.
The Random Direction Torpedo Mod has been disabled for all torpedoes to allow more predictable subroc and AI MH60 weapon delivery. The torpedoes will always go to the right upon enabling.
The Hull array of the SW has been changed to simulate what we believe to be more close to the actual sonar suite on the SW. The Hull array on the SeaWolf now represents a low frequency receiver with coverage slightly larger than the Sphere array and with the same geometry. The frequency sensitivity and and washout speed remain as before. This sonar suite should be very helpful for tracking evading targets and as well as for all situaions in the littorals where the TA cannot operate.
The Maxspeed of the MPT torpedo payload on the SS-N-27 ASW has been reduced from 55kts to 45kts. This is done partially because the torpedo probably is closer to that speed as well as to reduce the effectiveness of the SS-N-27 relative to the new torpedoes behavior.
That's it!
Please play the heck out of this, specifically looking into these things I have mentioned here and provide as much feedback as you can through the usual channels. :-)
Cheers,
David
LW

[OKO]

Acoustic datalink.


Are you sure ?

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/lmrs.htm

[OKO]

So you don't think something with an electric motor the size of a torpedo could go 20kts?

Of course, not with its sensors working, at least with reasonable sensitivity.

reasonable sensitivity mean totally blind at this speed ... for subs
I guess it's the same for UUV.

[OKO]

All you need to do is go to the CADC and download the playtest. :)

And then let me know what you think. ;)

http://www.orionwarrior.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29521

thx a lot LW
I will test this great work this WE

[OKO]

How does a dipping sonar or sonobuoy overcome even more restrictive size limitations?

I think heavyweight torpedoes are MUCH larger than a dipping sonar or a sonobuoy. ;)

All I'm really hearing from this conversation is: it's possible but there hasn't been any serious investment.

I think we all understand what the real life limitations of current UUV's are, but the more pressing conversation is what should we do for gameplay and is what's done for the playtest working the way you want it to.

Well, in fact, the biggest the sonar, the best capabilities in low frequencies
As low frequencies are always (on quiet sub detection only, not always on surface ships) the first to be detected, this suppose the UUV have less capabilities than any "correct" (not 40 years old ...) modern spherical array.
He should detect a quiet sub at much closer range than the spherical, in fact, only when medium frequencies could be heard.
This doesn't work like this in DW unfortunatly ...

If you could avoid the UUV to detect frequency before 200 hz (a complete "out of nowhere" value here, I don't know what is the sound spectrum capabilities of the UUV, but it should be quite limited because of the sensor size), then you will avoid the UUV to catch subs except at very short range, on medium frequencies, but you can use it at much longer distance on noisy surface ships.

[LuftWolf]

In terms of ASW performance, subs running at "silent speed" are going to be invisible to the UUV. In the test scenario that I am using, my 688i isn't picked up even at 500 yards by the UUV! However, a 688i going 14kts, is picked up by the UUV at about 5.5nm.

Personally, I like the way this works a lot. You can move steathily all you want, but if you want to step on the gas, you better be sure there is no UUV lurking about!

In gameplay terms, what this means is that the UUV is a good tool for ASW *after* the shooting starts, to keep track of an opponent's evasion. So picture this, you and your opponent pick each other up on the TA at about 13nm. You close with your opponent, taking multiple unpredictable legs on a closing course to get within good wire range. On your way in, you fire a UUV deep and try to run it by your opponent, hoping to pick him up. Once the TIW's start coming, your opponent decides to flee and he shows up the UUV, and with a nice triangulation from your TA or sphere, you get a good solution and guide your torpedo on target!

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=52499&start=0

[Amizaur]

Well, rest assured... the sensitivity of the UUV passive sonar has been MUCH reduced.


that's right to me
i couldn't see how a so small sonar could have the capabilities of a spherical array.
not really the same size and sophistications.

LW, please take a look to the Playtest thread, I wrote there what I should write here - about UUV sensivity. Just like people here are saying - it's not only the sensivity that has to be changed, it's the working frequency range !! But I believe you know this, as you described UUV as "mobile TB-29"... In fact UUV sensor currently has frequency range identical as a towed array... Or did you only mean it's -3 sensivity when comparing to TB-29 ? In Playtest you did nothing to change it (frequencies), it's still just a mobile TB-29, only much less sensitive...

[TLAM Strike]

I'm by no means an expert, but a base tonal should represent the harmonic frequency of its electrics, which would be either 50hz or 60hz. Yes but we're talking about something that can generate whatever tonals it wants and something we want to fool the player which means we might have to bend a few rules.

I'm really hesitant to make the base tonal of the UUV something other than 50hz or 60hz. Also, if I make the first tonal 125, the computer is smart enough to see that there is no 50 or 60hz tonal, and will instantly recognize the UUV anyway, so it won't accomplish what I think you are looking to do.You know when I’m right I’m right, and me I’m always right.

Guess what? I decided to just go and do it. I made a UUV with a signature of 125, 125, 320,1100,0 on a 7 blade prop (7 TPK) and a Passive SL of around 60 and guess what the NB filter on the TB-29 gave 688, 688(i), Traffie, Akulas and UUV as its possible class a very close range.

It might just be sufficient to fool even a experienced player in the heat of battle.

There is a drawback, 50 and 60 hz baseline tonals remove either the US or Ru units depending on what’s selected and 55 hz does give UUV as the only possible solution and a baseline of 0 will display no signature at all. But I still think this could work if people wanted a MOSS instead of a UUV.

[LuftWolf]

Well, rest assured... the sensitivity of the UUV passive sonar has been MUCH reduced.


that's right to me
i couldn't see how a so small sonar could have the capabilities of a spherical array.
not really the same size and sophistications.

LW, please take a look to the Playtest thread, I wrote there what I should write here - about UUV sensivity. Just like people here are saying - it's not only the sensivity that has to be changed, it's the working frequency range !! But I believe you know this, as you described UUV as "mobile TB-29"... In fact UUV sensor currently has frequency range identical as a towed array... Or did you only mean it's -3 sensivity when comparing to TB-29 ? In Playtest you did nothing to change it (frequencies), it's still just a mobile TB-29, only much less sensitive...

Hey, I do things for reason. I tested the frequencies sensitivities and came up with that they do crap...

[LuftWolf]

Apparently, the UUV sensor just don't work like other sensors.

I tested it as if it were... so I need to go back and try combinations of things as if its some kind of totally unique entity, which it is.

[Molon Labe]

2 of 6 UGSTs I fired in a test circled instead of running out on the assigned snapshot bearing. The other four torps were assigned to contacts.

I had no indication when wires were broken other than that, some time after ordering turns, the torps had not in fact turned. This meant that I did NOT cut the wires to reload the tubes. In one 2-torp salvo, one torpedo made the kill after both wires had been cut. But, since I did not manually close the tube door, I was able to shut down the second torp, and probably would have done so in game without even realizing that the wires had ever been cut.

The second salvo was a total miss. I realized it was a miss and tried to resteer. They didn't react, indicating broken wires. Since they couldn't be resteered on target, there was no reason not to shut them down.

I think the shutdown problem is not something that can be so casually overlooked as previously anticipated.

[Amizaur]

2 of 6 UGSTs I fired in a test circled instead of running out on the assigned snapshot bearing.

:stare: can't believe something like that could have been be missed... have to check playtest one version of torpedo mod, what happens for snapshots.
My test versions of mods always worked perfectly... zero problems.

I had no indication when wires were broken other than that, some time after ordering turns, the torps had not in fact turned.

There will be no other indication... we can't just generate a message for player from docrine... the only way to know that "wire is broken now" is that it doesn't respond to control inputs anymore.

I was able to shut down the second torp, and probably would have done so in game without even realizing that the wires had ever been cut.

I don't think it's possible to avoid this, shutdown is an instantly and irreversibly working command, it shutdowns at once and we can't do anything with that as long as "real" game wire (the one you cut by closing doors) is not cut. Probably there will always be possible to shutdown such torpedo. Sorry... it's only workaround... for real more realistic wire, ask the Sonalysts... this is the best we can do by modding probably - realistic wire with length and limitations, but no "wire broken" message and always possible to shutdown torpedo...

They didn't react, indicating broken wires. Since they couldn't be resteered on target, there was no reason not to shut them down.

Did you preenable them first ? Maybe they lost their target (CM?) and continued ahead, as torpedos in DW sometimes do. If you preenabled them, and they still didn't react, then maybe the limitations on launching platform programmed by Luftwolf were triggered ? A a session with DbgView active to see debugoutput comments from torpedo and wirewatch doctrines would say what is happening.

LW, I wonder that maybe first all should feel familiar with original ATC mod controls and limitations (wire broken only by exceeding wire range), and only then - when all works ok and people know how to use it, then add the more advanced limitations and triggers for ownship maneuvering ?

For now, Molon had non-responding torpedo, and he didn't knew if it's a bug, or wire was broken by his ownship maneuver (with experimental conditionals for "break" detecting).

I think the shutdown problem is not something that can be so casually overlooked as previously anticipated.

Unfortunately, I don't know any way to prevent shutdown possibility. But - what's the problem ?? That a player can shutdown (kill) his own torpedo even though it's supposed to be out of control ? What profits from that ? How could one exploit this ? The only thing that comes to my mind is that he avoids beeing killed by his own torpedo in some hard to imagine situation, and that he can avoid killing a friendly.civilian outside wire range. Maybe assume this is torpedo's internal safe mechanisms that prevents it from killing friendlies ? Or maybe just don't use shutdown button, if torp is non responding (so out of control). When torp is out of wire range, you can't resteer it, enable or preenable (LW fixed this bug), the only thing you can do is shutdown it "illegaly"... is that so bad ?

P.S. Took a 688 and fired few ADCAPs at targets and snapshots. No circling torpedos, all gone for snapshot bearing correctly. But... there seems to be something wrong with playtest one torpedo mods, LW... :-? Two times after passive (one click and I'm sure passive, becasue it didn't pinged at me) enable, torpedos DIDN'T slow down to 40kts !!! Stayed at 55kts in passive mode. Wrong. Have to hunt it down tomorrow with DbgView, maybe there is some syntax error, were they checked with DoctrineChecker ?

P.S.2. I see - after passive enable

Preenablespeed = 40, ok
Setspd Preenablespeed - ok

but only once... :hmm: in fact the setspd command IS given and clearly doesn't work... but this sometimes happens in DW. That's why normally the setspd order is repeated every second. maybe setsped preenablespeed should be repeated every in turn is passive mode, too...? But that's for tomorrow.

and, LW - just after launch, my ADCAP detected his ownship at few yards with visual sensor, as it should.

[1752] NSE: Improved LA SSN detected by Mk 48 ADCAP Torp with Visual at rng 35

OK. But one second later...

[1752] NSE: Kuznetsov CV detected by Mk 48 ADCAP Torp with Visual at rng 117053
[1752] NSE: Kirov CGN detected by Mk 48 ADCAP Torp with Visual at rng 111676
[1752] NSE: Sovremenny DDG detected by Mk 48 ADCAP Torp with Visual at rng 105709

:o

I see this visual sensor has almost unlimited range... Are you sure it is needed ?? When a target is detected, it's stored im memory as long as it's not dropped, even if it's no longer seen by any sensor. This was the case of Maverick missile bug - target was handed to missile at start, and then it homed on it even though it was NEVER detected by ANY missile sensor ! Not seen, but kept in memory and homed on. So it's probably not needed to see the ownship all the time, it should be enaugh that you detect it once and never drop. Try to give this visual sensor a 100yds range, I think it should still work, and don't detect everything on the map every few seconds :-). And WireWatch doctrine could be even shorter (no need for rejecting other targets). And sensor maybe could be rear-facing.

(edit: but if a torped passed withing 50yds from something (CM? sub?) then it would acquire it, even with rear-facing sensor... so maybe rejecting false targets would be still needed, just the sensor would not detect everything on map and slow down the game).

Try to make WireWatch sensor 50-100yds limited and say me how it worked :-)

[Molon Labe]

I haven't been able to repeat the problem with the UGST.

The problem with the second salvo was not that they missed or couldn't be resteered, it was that I was able to shut them down after the wires were broken. Luftwolf claimed earlier that this wouldn't be a problem because the player would reload the tube once the wires were cut, but since we don't get notifed when this happens we're not going to reload right away.

The problem with the shutdown command still being functional is that a player can shut down a torpedo before it hits a neutral or friendy at a time in which that should not be possible. And no, I'm not going to make-believe that it's not a problem by conjuring up some mystery fail-safe program.

[Amizaur]

Isn't a player able to do exactly the same thing, without the mod ? ;) Shutdown it at any distance if torpedo doors not closed ?

Problem is unsolveable probably... so we can use the mod and live with it... or... don't use the mod and still have to live with it - because in stock game it is possible to shut-down such torpedo too ! At any range, as long as torpedo doors open. Isn't it the same ?

[Molon Labe]

Isn't a player able to do exactly the same thing, without the mod ? ;) Shutdown it at any distance if torpedo doors not closes ?
Problem is unsolveable probably... so we can use the mod and live with it... or... don't use the mod and still have to live with it - because in stock game it is possible to shut-down such torpedo too. At any range, as long as torpedo doors open.

I'm not aware of any situation in the stock game where you can shut down a torpedo that is not on a wire.

[LuftWolf]

I set the range of the visual seeker to be about 300000m, because I was trying to rule it out as a source of inaccurate target data. This was just a test value, so perhaps it could be reduced, maybe significantly. I think the AI sensors work differently than in subcommand in some signficant ways.

The debugviewer will show it detecting every contact within its range every cycle, because it is also dropping every visual contact each cycle. It was necessary to have it this way so that it will treat newtracks from its acoustic sensors as actual newtracks. In fact, it was this aspect of the ownship wirebreak mod that worried me the most, the fact that it worked was a major relief to me.

Molon, the circle torp issue I have seen with the stock torpedo doctrine as well. In terms of the torpedoshutdown issue, I see where this is going, and I've already decided that its not a factor for me. Although, you can feel free to call it a cheat if your opponent exploits this, its not going to change anything being done in the mod.

Cheers,
David

PS The 40kts speed command always worked fine on my computer, and no, I saw no circling torpedoes.

[LuftWolf]

Isn't a player able to do exactly the same thing, without the mod ? ;) Shutdown it at any distance if torpedo doors not closes ?
Problem is unsolveable probably... so we can use the mod and live with it... or... don't use the mod and still have to live with it - because in stock game it is possible to shut-down such torpedo too. At any range, as long as torpedo doors open.

I'm not aware of any situation in the stock game where you can shut down a torpedo that is not on a wire.

The point that Amizaur is making is that this feature of being able to shutdown wireguided torps at any range with the doors open is present in the stock game.


And the point you are making is that the inconsistency of being able to shutdown torpedoes that can no longer be controlled by the wire is frustrating.

And we are in full agreement there.

So the workaround at this point, is on the users' end. Unless you don't want to do ANY of the work, that is to say, to have some self-control and expect your opponents do the same.

The argument that people can't control themselves is not a persuasive argument to me. I can control myself, the fact that others can't shouldn't have to be my problem in life (this is generally my strategy in all things).

[Molon Labe]

But when you don't get notification, it's hard to self-police.

[Fish]

What about the balance between Akula and Seawolf/688 with the wire breaking at a certain distance?

[Amizaur]

ADCAP has 10nm of wire measuring from the launch point, UGST has 13.5nm of wire. But as real submarines are saying, in real life engenament ranges between modern subs are much shorter than wire length :-) Only in game, because of long detection ranges, we can make so loong shots.
Wire length could be a factor probably when taking long shots against noisy surface units, probably slow and unaware (civilian?) because fast military ship could try to runout a torpedo at ranges outside 10nm if he got warning in time...

Molon - range is 15nm, torpedo tube doors are open. You try to shutdown torpedo. In stock game - you succeed. In mod - you succeed. What's the difference ? In both cases you have same situation. Only with mod it's litte more realistic, because you can't resteer your torpedo at that range, but the realism of shutdown possibility is EXACTLY the same.

I could say, stock game wire realism is 50% (torpedo tube doors cuts it, possible enable disable and course steering, wire length unlimited, shutdown possibility unlimited).
Mod wire realism is 80% (torpedo tube doors cuts it, enable, disable, sensor mode, course, some depth ansd speed steering possible, range of steering limited, shutdown possibility unlimited).

LW - I think the long range of wirewatch sensor is unneeded, as you only need to detect one target once - the ownship at 35yds. Later it's unneeded completly, and it would be even better if it WOULD NOT detect anything other till the end, right ? Rejecting of false targets probably should stay, but not having in game (especially MP) multiple sensors of great range, detecting nearly everything every few seconds, even if does nothing wrong for doctrine working, it's not very good for cPU cycles and net bandwith requirements probably... maybe not for fast computers and fast networks, but it's not an elegant solution from programmer's point of view :). Try to make it 50yds sensor and see if it works. If works, then I think it's better if it don't detects everything else ?

As for torpedos circling and not slowing down to 40kts. When something is going on on my computer ONLY, and no one else experiences it, then probably something with my comp or my game install is wrong. Not a game or doctrine bug.
But when for most people everything is fine, but for few some strange and same things happen, then it's something with the game or with the doctrine. And even if it's something with the game itself (and NOT a doctrine's fault - command is given, but game ignores it), I can't fix the game but try to redesign the doctrine to workaround the problem. For example if sometimes game ignores a command, I take care to repeat the command instead of giving it once. If game ignores command with proper syntax, but accepts command with something added (MANPAD missile fix) then I make it to workaround the problem. So I think, even if something is happening only for some people, and for the rest everything is fine, we should try to do something with it if we only can.... hunt down the problem, try to workaround it. BTW when you saw circling torps in stock game - if you see this once again, try to check what's the state of circlemode variable is ? Maybe something strange is happening with it, or it is ok but the command that checks it is working wrong. maybe there is one more game error showing up even for standard DW torpedo doctrine ? And maybe we could think of something to fix it :-).

edit: ok, I know what is cause of not slowing-down torps. A bit strange, I tested both ATC demo doctrine and Lw302wATC doctrine, only with line modified to exclude visual sensor detections, and seen all torpedos slowed down immediately at passive enable. Reverted to TorpedoADCAPWire doctrine - first try and torpedo continues at 55kts after passive enable...
Not always, but often. I can recreate it every time, launching Barents Sea Loiter, launching and ADCAP at a ship (show truth on) from NAV map, waiting for it to turn and stabilise, and enabling it by single click. It enables but don't slow down to 40kts and seems to be long while before it starts to snake too.
Maybe the WireWatch and target detections by visual sensor are causing this somehow... Couldn't the visual sensor be just disabled after the ownship is detected ?? And care taken to not enable it again ? Maybe it would STILL work, just like for reduced range sensor ?
edit2: decreasing visual sensor range to 60yds didn't resolve problem. Removing visual sensor completly... and the problem disappeared !!! :o
So it's connected with this sensor somehow, but not with it's detecttions (there were no new detections when range was reduced to 60yds)... or with WireWatch doctrine ? Now I'll try to disable the sensor at start, so sensor will be present, but wirewatch doctrine never initialised...
Yess. Disabling at init didn't work, so I just added visual sensor disable at the end of the doctrine (near the shutdown part). WireWatch never initialised. No problem with torpedo speed - slowed down to 40 after passive enable. So the problem is somehow connected with Wirewatch doctrine. But is fixable by either adding setspd commands just after preenablespeed=40 command, or changing setspd to one global command localises near the end of the doctrine (near shutdown part).
end of edit2 :-)

The original torpedo doctrine repeated setspd command every second for non-enabled torps. After enable, setspeed repeating stopped. we added only one speed change command at enable. well seems sometimes one is not enough.

Two solutions, first is to add SetSpd Preenablespeed command after each speed change, so after changing preenablespeed value, commanding it immediately, not waiting for later more global one. So in enable part, not:

IF ( AcousticMode == 0 ) THEN {
PASSIVEENABLE
DEBUGOUT "Torpedo Passive Enabled"
DebugOut "Speed set to 40kts"
PreEnableSpeed = 40
} ELSE {

but

IF ( AcousticMode == 0 ) THEN {
PASSIVEENABLE
DEBUGOUT "Torpedo Passive Enabled"
DebugOut "Speed set to 40kts"
PreEnableSpeed = 40
SetSpd PreenableSpeed
} ELSE {

Or the other, more perspective solution - the setspd command should be moved to general doctrine area near at the end of doctrine, to be evaluated each time regardless of torpedo state. Only special SetSpeed (or something like that) variable value will be changed when needed, and one SetSpd SetSpeed command will set speed globally every second at the end of the doctrine. This is how it worked in my new torpedo mods (Advanced Torp Physics as someone called them... for me it's Very Basic Torp Physics :-j ), although I made setting speed this way for quite other reasons there.
Still have no idea what circling torpedos could cause... haven't seen that personally... if someone can recreate it at will, please say, we can arrange DbgView session :-). Maybe the IF - THEN condition not worked properly or CircleSearchPattern variable was set wrong but why...?

edit2: a though - well, if there were separate AI versions of playable subs, with own weapons, many torpedo doctrines would be much shorter, because the part of checking if it's human player or AI launched torpedo would be unneeded. But that would require to play against AI only specially created missions with AI subs, problem would be also with MP missions with controllable but AI-driven platforms... pros and cons...
The doctrine avoid-shooting-friendly-surface-and-civilians-by-AI mod was developed originally as strictly doctrine-only solution, so it can be used on stock game database. Database editing gives new ways of dealing with that... but everything at a cost. Doctrine only solution at a cost of doctrine complication (I'm not sure to this day how serious problem or problem at all is this, have to run someday a game on slow computer with simple and complicated doctrines and compare framerates), database solution (separate units for human players and AI) at a cost of not-global effect and working for dedicated missions only (forget mod effects for all original and pre-mod missions as long as someone doesn't redesign them... and then those redesigned missions would not work for stock game if someone wanted to play MP on pure DW...).

To SCS - the fact that doctrine commands are definitely IGNORED sometimes, makes me more and more p!@#$d with time, as more cases of it shows up. When, when someone will take a look at doctrine language (doctrine language interpreter?) and check WHAT's WRONG WITH IT ?? Some cases of command ignoring are happening randomly, but some are are easily observed and 100% repeatable !! :shifty:

[LuftWolf]

(separate units for human players and AI)

We don't need to make new units, only make duplicates of AI weapons and assign them to the sub launchers, since the Launchers file is ignored completely for AI units, as the interface takes the values for each player weapon directly from a specified entry in the database... its the no-new-playables limitation working for us. :)

[Amizaur]

(separate units for human players and AI)

We don't need to make new units, only make duplicates of AI weapons and assign them to the sub launchers, since the Launchers file is ignored completely for AI units (you mean - ignored for human driven units)

:stare: :hmm: :oops: :D :up:

Right ! This should work ! Why didn't I though about this before ??? :oops: Brilliant idea !! :yep: :up: I'm almost glad that I didn't make the work of merging all the older mods with new torpedo doctrines, because now I would have to edit all of them again to remove unneeded parts from them :lol: Completly new versions will be needed (not universal but player only and AI only), much more simple and shorter :up:

[LuftWolf]

But when you don't get notification, it's hard to self-police.

It's pretty simple... when you can't control the torpedo using the wire commands, close the door and reload. :)

[LuftWolf]

Ok, just a quick question... would anyone mind seeing the circle and snake selector for the ADCAP and UGST/Test-71-NK turned into a under-keel detonation and wakehoming mode (respectively) selector switch? (The other way I would do this is with ceiling height, but I'd rather have the ceiling be independent of these modes, as I have other plans there ;) )

I'm thinking of using multiple enable button clicks to trigger a single circle left and single circle right reattack mode for torpedoes still on the wire.

Do you guys like this plan?

PS The way I plan to do the underkeel mode I think will be a nice surprise. :know: Right now, I'm 85% sure it will work.

[Molon Labe]

But when you don't get notification, it's hard to self-police.

It's pretty simple... when you can't control the torpedo using the wire commands, close the door and reload. :)

Hopefully (for DW's sake), you're too busy doing other things while this is going on. I accepted this answer until I actually played. The truth is that it's overly optimistic.

[Molon Labe]

Ok, just a quick question... would anyone mind seeing the circle and snake selector for the ADCAP and UGST/Test-71-NK turned into a under-keel detonation and wakehoming mode (respectively) selector switch? (The other way I would do this is with ceiling height, but I'd rather have the ceiling be independent of these modes, as I have other plans there ;) )

I'm thinking of using multiple enable button clicks to trigger a single circle left and single circle right reattack mode for torpedoes still on the wire.

Do you guys like this plan?

PS The way I plan to do the underkeel mode I think will be a nice surprise. :know: Right now, I'm 85% sure it will work.

Under the keel as in enhanced damage?

[Amizaur]

PS The way I plan to do the underkeel mode I think will be a nice surprise. :know: Right now, I'm 85% sure it will work.

Under the keel as in enhanced damage?

Hmm would be great if possible. There is possibility of proximity under-keel detonations, but as I tried them, first they don't cause more damage than normal ones, in fact less damage, second thing - the explosion blast range in DW is enormously big, and when detonation is triggered by proximity fuse, not only target but all ships in few hundreds yards radius are hit and damaged by explosion... My first try of under-keel 65cm torpedo detonation launched against a ship in convoy - it sunk 3 ships !!! and mor or less severly damaged all other in the convoy... :o I'm not sure it's good, it worked like small shalow nuclear explosion rather...
If a torpedo could have two different warheads assigned... :)

P.S. I think I just realised how to emulate underwater NUCLEAR WARHEADS in DW :rotfl:

[Amizaur]

Ok, just a quick question... would anyone mind seeing the circle and snake selector for the ADCAP and UGST/Test-71-NK turned into a under-keel detonation and wakehoming mode (respectively) selector switch?

In SCX wakehoming mode was enabled by setting torpedo to run very shallow. Worked nicely :-). And wakehoming has to be shallow anyway...


PS The way I plan to do the underkeel mode I think will be a nice surprise. :know: Right now, I'm 85% sure it will work.

Could you give some hints how you plan to do this on priv ? :) I can give you an idea for nuclear tipped torpedos and depth charges in exchange ;)

P.S. just tried this, made about 300MT warhead for 65cm torpedo, killed every ship and sub in 50nm radius :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[LuftWolf]

True, but for the wireguided torpedoes, the circle and snake selectors are basically useless... I can't think of a single time when I've wanted a circle torpedo on a wire... so it would be nice to have the option to do something more useful with the switch. :know:

[LuftWolf]

But when you don't get notification, it's hard to self-police.

It's pretty simple... when you can't control the torpedo using the wire commands, close the door and reload. :)

Hopefully (for DW's sake), you're too busy doing other things while this is going on. I accepted this answer until I actually played. The truth is that it's overly optimistic.

Hopefully this community will start developing a little bit because it could easily go from a two man show to a no-man show. ;)

I can't tell you how disappointing it is to be the ONLY group of people (aside from the mission designers) doing anything on this piece of software, including the developers. It's starting to not be very much fun, when old-timers in the community can't even take the time to learn DWedit as a reference tool, and many have simply left the community, it makes me wonder why I'm doing this.

In CM there is a tool called PBEMHelper. In short it completely overrides the anti-cheat functions of the Play-by-Email mode. A player using PBEMHelper Fast and Trust could rerun every single results file after watching it if he wanted to before sending one to his opponent. Yet, still many many CM players use this mode with PBEMHelper to play games faster and in a more enjoyable way because they trust their opponents.

And you are saying that we should't do this mod because you can shutdown torpedoes?

That's so weak I can't even explain it. If that's the state of the community here, then I should stop now. Please tell me I can do that. :up:

[Molon Labe]

Hey man chill, I never said anything about whether or not the work should continue. I'm just reporting the fact that this is a bigger problem than we originally thought. Of particular concern is that it could be used to "cheat" accidentally because of the notification problem. Whether or not that's a problem big enough to keep me from using it in the end will depend on the other "plusses" the advanced mod offers.

[SeaQueen]

True, but for the wireguided torpedoes, the circle and snake selectors are basically useless... I can't think of a single time when I've wanted a circle torpedo on a wire... so it would be nice to have the option to do something more useful with the switch. :know:

Circle search is more useful when you're worried about the wire breaking. When you shoot past the wire length and the torpedo is set to snake search, it makes the torpedo easier to evade by chosing the proper direction. When you have wire guidence, that isn't so much of a problem.

When you have it circle search and you lose the wire, then no direction is obviously favored. There are also ways in which you could shoot a pattern of torpedoes so that an area is covered by circle searching torpedoes which could complicate evasion.

I'd have to work out the geometry, but it might be a good tactic for longer ranged shots against slower targets, shots against groups of warships, or against targets against which you have a questionable firing solution. That's probably a lot more thought than most people playing want to invest in shooting torpedoes, but it is a way to make use of it.

Heh... back when I used to play Red Storm Rising ALL you had was circle search. Snake search is for people who can't get an accurate firing solution. :)

[LuftWolf]

Hey man chill, I never said anything about whether or not the work should continue. I'm just reporting the fact that this is a bigger problem than we originally thought. Of particular concern is that it could be used to "cheat" accidentally because of the notification problem. Whether or not that's a problem big enough to keep me from using it in the end will depend on the other "plusses" the advanced mod offers.

Sorry, I'm just venting. :88)

This particular issue and the arguments around it seem to have touched a sensitive spot for me that I relate to some other "larger" things that are kind of a downer for me right now when it comes to DW.

On the one hand, I hear that many cheaters are coming into the community... on the other hand it's dissappointing to me that many old timers don't seem to be around anymore, having grown impatient for various fixes, changes, etc. or just moved on, after years of SubCommand, and more or less, having to start over with DW.

I understand all this... I also understand that DW is going to be the only game of its kind for at least the next two or three years, probably longer. In fact, we are probably looking at something like Harpoon here, if only because I'm not sure this game will ever get made again. So my timeframe on making changes is looking at this... I'm trying to picture what the diehards still playing the game in a year and a half will want, and that's what I'm modding for.

The potential for this game is so great, and now that we are really on the cusp of making changes that will fundamentally change tactics in a way not seen in the 688i/SC/SCX/DW family, and that are also the product of a lot of work and judgement, it's concerning to see second-thoughts about something that was disclosed before the hard work started, and that everyone decided could be worked around on the user-end.

Just to put things in perspective, this would be exactly the second thing we are asking for a pass from the user on and a little help in realizing appropriately in game (the first being mentioned in the readme, and so I don't have to repeat here). I think given the scope of the various changes and what we are working with, that's pretty reasonable.

I just want to see us all become better at whatever it is we are doing here.

[Molon Labe]

Sorry about giving it a "pass," but that "pass" was only implicit (by shutting up for a few days) and is only worth as much as went into it--that is to say, I had to form an opinion without having tested it. Now, having actually tested it, I found out that the problem was bigger than it seemed when you shut me up about it a week (or whatever) ago, so I said so...

[LuftWolf]

I found out that the problem was bigger than it seemed

And I'm saying that this "problem" is the user's inclination to use the command that can't be disabled when it could be simply asked of them NOT to use it.

The actual fact of it being there is exactly as it was described.

My basic point is that other communities have done a lot more, and I'm not sure what the hold up is at this juncture here. :hmm:

[Molon Labe]

I found out that the problem was bigger than it seemed

And I'm saying that this "problem" is the user's inclination to use the command that can't be disabled when it could be simply asked of them NOT to use it.

Which doesn't do any good if they don't know that it's off the wire! That's the whole point! This is going to happen by accident!

[LuftWolf]

I found out that the problem was bigger than it seemed

And I'm saying that this "problem" is the user's inclination to use the command that can't be disabled when it could be simply asked of them NOT to use it.

Which doesn't do any good if they don't know that it's off the wire! That's the whole point! This is going to happen by accident!

Considering your argument is that "once the torpedo is off the wire, the user should just shut it down", I don't understand why it would happen by accident if the reason the user wants to shut it down is because he just discovered the wire has run out. :hmm:

I still don't think this is a convincing argument against doing this modification.

[Rip]

This all sounds great to me, except for what you told me about the wire lengths. Since the proposed mod measures the distance from the launch point, a sub that is running will get a few extra miles of guidance, and a sub following the torp or resteering it at a nearby target will get ripped off.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I heard that wire is not only unrolling from the torpedo, but also from the submarine, to avoid the wire to be cut too easily with sub manoeuvers.
The 10-13 miles of torpedo wire shouldn't be affected, in this case, by sub runs.

All modifications mentionned looks fantastic !

But anyone could give an explanation why non electrical torps run slower at high depth, please ?

The physics of the engine works off of pressure differential as it gets deeper the pressure increases lowering differential. IIRC

[Molon Labe]

I found out that the problem was bigger than it seemed

And I'm saying that this "problem" is the user's inclination to use the command that can't be disabled when it could be simply asked of them NOT to use it.

Which doesn't do any good if they don't know that it's off the wire! That's the whole point! This is going to happen by accident!

Considering your argument is that "once the torpedo is off the wire, the user should just shut it down", I don't understand why it would happen by accident if the reason the user wants to shut it down is because he just discovered the wire has run out. :hmm:

I still don't think this is a convincing argument against doing this modification.

NO, he would shut it down when it's about to hit something, or when the first weapon in a salvo hit the target and there's nothing left for the second weapon to hit.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

NO, he would shut it down when it's about to hit something, or when the first weapon in a salvo hit the target and there's nothing left for the second weapon to hit.

In most situations, a sane person will first try to redirect a torpedo before giving up on it. This is when he finds out the wire broke. If he still shuts down the torpedo, that at least makes it intentional.

I can see LW can't override the Shutdown command, but I wonder whether it'd be possible to impose some kind of punishment via doctrine - link something extra to the shutdown button if the wire's cut - say he reveals his position to all (suspension of disbelief: he uses acoustic signals to direct the torp to shut down, but the datalink is audible to all).

[OKO]

The physics of the engine works off of pressure differential as it gets deeper the pressure increases lowering differential. IIRC

I will be very glad if you could give me some link about spec or graphics !
I suppose non eletric have a closed circuit, using gas pressure to run the propellent, and the external pressure will slowly, with depth, increase the water resistance ? huh ?
But in that case, water resistance should have also effect on electricals ... so it shouldn't be like this.
some info about will be very much appreciate Rip :up:
thx

[LuftWolf]

The physics of the engine works off of pressure differential as it gets deeper the pressure increases lowering differential. IIRC

I will be very glad if you could give me some link about spec or graphics !
I suppose non eletric have a closed circuit, using gas pressure to run the propellent, and the external pressure will slowly, with depth, increase the water resistance ? huh ?
But in that case, water resistance should have also effect on electricals ... so it shouldn't be like this.
some info about will be very much appreciate Rip :up:
thx

I can assure you this is correct.

The non-electric torpedoes run on the difference in pressure between the propellant and the outside world. Electric torpedoes run on a battery powered motor.

As both torpedoes go deeper, their props become more efficient (to compensate for the increased density of the water they are moving through), however, the fuel/engine for non-electric torpedoes becomes less efficient in producing torque, and thus they slow down whereas the electric torpedoes maintain their speed.

Amizaur sent me an email on this, that I can shape up a bit and repost if there is further interest, I probably should have done it sooner.

[LuftWolf]

I found out that the problem was bigger than it seemed

And I'm saying that this "problem" is the user's inclination to use the command that can't be disabled when it could be simply asked of them NOT to use it.

Which doesn't do any good if they don't know that it's off the wire! That's the whole point! This is going to happen by accident!

Considering your argument is that "once the torpedo is off the wire, the user should just shut it down", I don't understand why it would happen by accident if the reason the user wants to shut it down is because he just discovered the wire has run out. :hmm:

I still don't think this is a convincing argument against doing this modification.

NO, he would shut it down when it's about to hit something, or when the first weapon in a salvo hit the target and there's nothing left for the second weapon to hit.

Therefore making it a willful act that can be regulated by rules, or in this case, one rule: "don't shut down torpedoes you can't control."

[jsteed]

Hi Luftwolf,

I can't speak for all old timers, just for myself. I stopped looking at DW well over a year ago. There were a number of reasons, but they were all related to the fact that SA produced a buggy game and had no intention of fixing it. The bug that made me throw in the towel was the in the active sonar. The power output was a factor of 10 to large and could not be compensated for in the db. Now these oversites are not unusual, but what was unacceptable was the length of time it took to fix it and finally distribute the patch. By the time it came along, I was already back to playing SC.

Since my only interest in DW was in the sub portion of the game, there really was nothing to keep me from going back to SC. The physics engine had very serious problems. And that was the only "improvement" over SC that interested me. I certainly am not claiming that SC is not without its share of bugs. It's just that most of those bugs could be compensated for via db and/or doctrine changes. The same cannot be said for DW. In fact DW's are more fundamental and consequently more noticable.

I do not attribute the relative poor quality of DW to the programmers. From my experience with them during the 1st beta testing phase, I can say that they are first rate. It was the management of this game that failed. Their priorities of what to fix were often strange and at times incomprehensible. Much of the time, our requests for certain fixes seemed to be completely ignored. I would guess that you have had similar experiences.

From what I read here from time to time, it appears that you and Amizaur have done an excellent job in improving DW. You are to be congratulated for all your hard work. You two have probably kept DW alive for much longer than it deserved. It's a pity your talents weren't around when SCX and SCU were developed. Had they been, I would have wasted far less time working on DW. Come to think of it, it's not too late for you two to jump ship and bring your ideas to SC.

cheers, jsteed

[Sea Demon]

I'm pretty happy with Dangerous Waters myself. I think it deserves alot of praise. ;)

[Molon Labe]

NO, he would shut it down when it's about to hit something, or when the first weapon in a salvo hit the target and there's nothing left for the second weapon to hit.

In most situations, a sane person will first try to redirect a torpedo before giving up on it.
Why redirect it if there isn't a target to hit anymore?

This is when he finds out the wire broke. If he still shuts down the torpedo, that at least makes it intentional.

I can see LW can't override the Shutdown command, but I wonder whether it'd be possible to impose some kind of punishment via doctrine - link something extra to the shutdown button if the wire's cut - say he reveals his position to all (suspension of disbelief: he uses acoustic signals to direct the torp to shut down, but the datalink is audible to all).

...Punishing someone for a complete accident.

[Molon Labe]

Hi Luftwolf,

I can't speak for all old timers, just for myself. I stopped looking at DW well over a year ago. There were a number of reasons, but they were all related to the fact that SA produced a buggy game and had no intention of fixing it. The bug that made me throw in the towel was the in the active sonar. The power output was a factor of 10 to large and could not be compensated for in the db. Now these oversites are not unusual, but what was unacceptable was the length of time it took to fix it and finally distribute the patch. By the time it came along, I was already back to playing SC.

Since my only interest in DW was in the sub portion of the game, there really was nothing to keep me from going back to SC. The physics engine had very serious problems. And that was the only "improvement" over SC that interested me. I certainly am not claiming that SC is not without its share of bugs. It's just that most of those bugs could be compensated for via db and/or doctrine changes. The same cannot be said for DW. In fact DW's are more fundamental and consequently more noticable.

I do not attribute the relative poor quality of DW to the programmers. From my experience with them during the 1st beta testing phase, I can say that they are first rate. It was the management of this game that failed. Their priorities of what to fix were often strange and at times incomprehensible. Much of the time, our requests for certain fixes seemed to be completely ignored. I would guess that you have had similar experiences.

From what I read here from time to time, it appears that you and Amizaur have done an excellent job in improving DW. You are to be congratulated for all your hard work. You two have probably kept DW alive for much longer than it deserved. It's a pity your talents weren't around when SCX and SCU were developed. Had they been, I would have wasted far less time working on DW. Come to think of it, it's not too late for you two to jump ship and bring your ideas to SC.

cheers, jsteed

Yeah, they did save DW from itself, especially with regards to the active sonar issues. :up:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Why redirect it if there isn't a target to hit anymore?

I'm assuming there is a target off to the far side he can redirect the torp to.

If the target that just got blasted is the last target, what difference does it make. Many people push End Game at this point - which will do the same thing.

...Punishing someone for a complete accident.

I don't see you coming up with suggestions... at least my solution has a shred of SoD realism - just remember to CHECK for wire continuity, and you won't have a problem.

[Molon Labe]

That's a bad assumption, both in the fact that it's common for there not to be a target left, and because the underlying premise is flawed; what matters is not if there is another target present but whether there is a target in range. It also assumes that anyone else's weapons in the water or air that are still running are shut down. Because in many situations there will in fact be other targets present in game outside of the weapons range or other platforms' weapons still on the board after a player destroys a target, your suggestion that the "End Mission" option is a solution to this problem is absurd.

It's going to take a lot of time for every player to develop a habit to "check" the status of a weapon before shutting it down.

I'm a tester, not a modder, so I really don't care if I have a suggestion or not. I'm just calling the problems as I see them.

[LuftWolf]

I think, in context, once all of the changes are implimented including the Advanced (Basic :) ) Torpedo Physics and the full torpedo individualiziation, this will wind up being a minor footnote.

There is of course another factor that we aren't considering... I would guess that both sides have features on their weapons that can limit the running range of their torpedoes if the wire should break. In DW, we have no such feature, other than the shutdown feature. Now *obviously*, we can be much smarter about shutting down our own weapons in context than a preset feature, but it remains to be proven that this isn't perhaps even a reasonable thing to have, albiet in an imperfect form.

Can anyone answer the question about safety features on wireguided weapons?

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=52820

[LuftWolf]

I can say that they are first rate. It was the management of this game that failed. Their priorities of what to fix were often strange and at times incomprehensible. Much of the time, our requests for certain fixes seemed to be completely ignored. I would guess that you have had similar experiences.

From what I read here from time to time, it appears that you and Amizaur have done an excellent job in improving DW. You are to be congratulated for all your hard work. You two have probably kept DW alive for much longer than it deserved. It's a pity your talents weren't around when SCX and SCU were developed. Had they been, I would have wasted far less time working on DW. Come to think of it, it's not too late for you two to jump ship and bring your ideas to SC.

cheers, jsteed

I agree, and thank you.

Cheers,
David

[Bellman]

LW: ''Footnote'' - I think you are right - the phrase 'washing the baby out with the bathwater' comes to mind.

Returning to the Playtest UUV, my dives have now allowed me to form an opinion. Mk 2 is a retrograde step
in gaming terms. It is long-ranged but short sighted and relatively useless for ASW. I can however go along with a
neo-political decision to emasculate it in that role. But Mk 2 forfeits the anti- torpedo defense capability.

I have canvassed a mere shuffle forward which as always has to be counterbalanced by a shuffle back.......so:
Forwards - retain the excellent new speed/dive control.
Backwards - Limit top speed to 10 (Two speed 6 or 10 )
Forwards - Marginaly increase range/time of running ........
Backwards -...............but make it speed dependent.

The Stock sonar receptivity should be retained but its range reduced by 30 - 50 % (moot point !)
The existing Stock UUV would be 'detuned' but its deployment would be enhanced.

:lol: For the Bronx readers a translation from Dickensian English. Poke it in de deuce of peekers and kick its tail...... Bud ! ;)

[Molon Labe]

I tracked LW on a Mk2 UUV yesterday, as well as my own torpedoes...

[Bellman]

ML: Well nobody said its impossible - but some supporting statistics to your general statement would
be appreciated. Egs. Distances, depths, speed and SSP for starters.
What platforms .....etc.

Just a tad more flesh on the bones please - you know what a stickler LW is for proper testing ! ;)
We have to rely on the 'experts' to feedback proper and full information !