One more thing to do for LwAmi 4.0

[Amizaur]

I would reccomend one more change that would make torpedo attacks much less trivial - proper torpedo seeker cone settings in elevation. I forget about this very simple but fundamental thing for a long time - that currently torpedo seeker cones are limited only in azimuth or horizontal plane. They are not limited in elevation (vertical) at all - can detect target straight up or down. The non-limited sekers have serious impact on torpedo working and gameplay, especially for air-dropped torpedos. Currently, in regard to torpedo seekers, we are playing effectively a 2D game... :-/

How could I forget about this for so long :cry: , this should be changed in LwAmi 2.0 at worst... :oops:

So let's add a third dimension to torpedo-target game.
What is needed to do:

In real life, vertical sensor coverage tends to be smaller than horizontal coverage, in older torps much smaller.

For example, for modern ASW torpedo like A-244S it is 80deg in azimuth and 40deg in elevation:

http://www.eurotorp.com/html/popa244.htm

State of the art MU-90 ASW torpedo has coverage of 120deg horizontal and 70deg vertical.

http://www.naval-technology.com/cont...iles/eurotorp/

Seems that vertical coverage is usually (for modern ones) about half of horizontal coverage.

This would mean for playable torps:

torpedo ........... current ConeAngleXY ....... new ConeAngleXY

ADCAP ...................... 45 ........................ 20-25
UGST ........................ 40 ........................ 20
Mk-50 ....................... 35 ........................ 15-20
the rest * .................. 30 ........................ 15

* (playable USET-80, TEST-71, UGMT-1, MPT-1UE)

(edit: also I would set ADCAPs cone angle to 50-55deg with a doctrine snake reduced to small 5-10deg pattern, to get 60deg effective search cone with barely noticeabe snake - just to see if it's searching or homing. Similar mod for UGST, 45-50deg cone and 10-15deg snake pattern. ConeAngleXY then could be 25-30deg for ADCAP and 25deg for UGST. Those two are the only really modern playable HWTs, the rest can be left with more narrow cones and normal snake pattern.
Non playable torps modified this way would be Spearfish (straight running would add a bit of effective speed to it), DM2A4, maybe Tigerfish... and possible future ones like Black Shark.

For bug related to higher torpedos speeds - the current 55kts limit is not neccesary absolute, in fact torpedo speeds up to 57kts are not bugged and it's possible to get little elevated but STABLE torp speed up to 68kts:

db spd..........result speed

55kts..........55kts ok, same as set
56kts..........56kts ok, same as set
57kts..........57kts ok, same as set

58kts..........59kts higher than set but stable
59kts..........61kts higher than set but stable
60kts..........63kts higher than set but stable
61kts..........66kts higher than set but stable
62kts..........68kts higher than set but stable

63kts..........46 - 69kts oscillation, totally bugged
64kts..........49 - 71kts oscillation, totally bugged
65kts..........55 - 73kts oscillation, totally bugged

(and all higher up to 145kts)

So 59-61kts for ADCAP is possible if needed, also up to 68kts stable speed for Spearfish, Type-89 and APR-3 is possible, just we have to remember that actual speed is higher than set when setting torp speeds in doctrine...

(is it true that Type-89 torp is electric one ? with SUCH speed ? then WOW :o)

(end of edit)


Player launched torps should get realistic seeker cones. Maybe helical search pattern (in place of current snake) could be implemented later... then "circle" switch could select between snake and helical search patterns ?


AI torps could get wide depth bands (wide depth coverage) seekers, or no limits at all (like now) but even AI launched torps should not see targets straight up/down IMO.



Of course it could take a while for us all to get used to this :-). One more thing to remeber while playing. One more factor in torpedo attack/defence.
But reward is once again more realistic and complex gameplay, with more real life tactics and creative tricks for both sides, attacking and defending.

Immediately torpedo depth settings become much more important, just as enable distance, and the best thing is that it would make work of AIR players more difficult - they would detect submarines just as before, but would be much harder to actually kill them, without good plan - just dropping torps on their heads would NOT work everytime :-D. Currently torpedos can detect sub even straight down - if torpedo is circling horizontally at 100ft and a target is
1000ft below - no problem, it sees it and dives. After change, it wouldn't see it as it would be outside it's seeker cone in vertical. To kill it, you'd have to know/guess at what depth it is or launch straight running torp at some distance to cover all depths bands by seeker... or use another tricks. ASW torpedo doctrine could be set to not circle at constant depth, but if target is not detected, slowly go down in a spiral pattern to check greater depths. I believe some ASW torpedo settings in real world does just this - search in a spiral going down. So torpedo dropped with shallow setting would eventually search deep too, but before it gets there spiraling it gives time for sub to get some distance... Or maybe to surface rapidly ABOVE torp search patter while it's turning away... (look at doppler to check this) ? :-) Many new tricks possible.

As a sub driver, you can be much more creative in evading dropped torps - as real life limits are put on torpedos, some real life tactics for getting out of their cone not only in azimuth but also in elevation (vertical) are working.

Killing subs from air platforms was just trivial in stock game. We made it a bit more realistic by setting more realistic parameters to sonobuoys and torpedo seekers. But it's still very easy, no art at all IMO, no skills needed, just drop a torp very close to target, best on it's head, and he's toast and his only defence are randomly working decoys... Now after setting limits to vertical field of view for torpedo seekers, we can bring it once again little closer to reality.


P.S. For people that like sources, here's one that is related:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITO...-4/joseph.html

"Guidance

Although sound travels very great distances through water, its erratic path makes underwater warfare very difficult. Water is in fact a hostile medium, the surface of the sea acts as a mirror and in shallow water seabed can also reflect sound.
Active Torpedoes seekers operating near the surface or in shallow waters must therefore be designed to counter such effects. As active detection relies on the Doppler effect to distinguish the real target from surrounding clutter, it follows that a hovering submarine may almost be impossible to detect.
A submarine that detects the active "Pinging" of a torpedo seeker will normally try to escape at top speed, but increasing the speed of the torpedo causes noisy water flow over the acoustic head.
One way to get around this is to run a heavyweight torpedo out to the vicinity of the target at high speed (transit speed) and then carry out the final-attack phase at a speed low enough to make the active seeker effective.
This solution was chosen for the US Navy’s Mk 48 and the Royal Navy Spearfish. As these HWT are wire guided the seeker can transmit target data back down the wire to the parents submarine fire control system. In effect it becomes an off board sensor, and incase the wire breaks the torpedo can be programmed to switch to home on seeker-data only.
The maximum speed at which the sonar is usable has improved in recent years as a result of better signal processing and Dome shaping. A Torpedo acquisition range is set largely by its ping rate, while the aspect angle of the seeker defines the band depth which it "sees" at any moment.
Torpedoes with narrow depth-bands usually follows helical search path/patterns whereas those with broader depth bands will seek a greater volume at any fixed depth, usually following a Sinuous (snake like) pattern.
Against surface targets passive seekers can be used, because the ship emit considerable noise from propellers and bow-waves, but is no longer considered good enough to home onto modern diesel-electric submarines (SSK) even when they are snorkeling and therefore making maximum noise.
To improve detection it would be necessary to go to lower frequencies with long wavelengths, too long for torpedoes seeker, This reason led the US navy to believe that active seeking was the only way to counter SSK. Both active and passive seekers are limited to the higher frequencies and so have relative short ranges. Wire guidance is therefore necessary to extend the effective range by providing midcourse guidance.
In its simplest form the wire provides a one way link to allow the torpedo to be corrected, but most modern torpedoes uses a two way wire to allow the torpedo to feed back its own data to the fire control system. This allows the operator to defeat countermeasures such as bubble screens or noisemakers."

by the way, may be interesting read, but I don't have time know to try it:

http://www.its-noesis.com/publicatio...do_defense.pdf

also

http://www.its-noesis.com/publicatio...rwater_aaw.pdf

and maybe the rest?

http://www.its-noesis.com/publications/pdf/

[Fish]

Sweet, sweet music! :rock:

[porphy]

You guys are incredible... truly amazing mod-effort :up:


Cheers Porphy

[Molon Labe]

Sounds great, and with the ATCM, it won't have a serious balance or playability tradeoff. :up:

[LuftWolf]

I've got this "on the fire" guys. :cool:

Thanks, Ami.

I knew there was a reason I was waiting to do the final physics edit to the database. Wow... I've got a lot to do.

No problem, eh?

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

In terms of the snaking design, here is how I have it designed right now.

The ADCAP will not snake in active mode at all, and will have a wide aspect seeker. In passive mode, it will retain the wide seeker dimensions, but with a wide snake pattern of about 45 degrees.

The UGST, Spearfish, and DM 2A4 will have a reduced to 15 degrees. All other torpedoes will retain 30 degree snake.

In terms of modding the APR family function... I dunno, with the speed range bug in 1.03, I can't really have it loitering about, so it will probably have to be simply a very fast, very loud, deep diving torpedo, so it's good news about the extra speed we can get. In terms of the APR used in the Stallion mod, I like the idea of having it be a straight runner, if only to have it differentiate from the SS-N-27, and since it's all hypothetical anyway... I feel we can take this liscence.

The vertical limits on the torpedo seeker sounds like a wonderful change. I also like the idea of giving the AI a bit of a hand by not limiting it quite so much for them. However, this does raise one question, in which catagory do the torpedoes for the FFG AI MH60 and SUBROCS fall? If the torpedo seekers are reduced for these weapons, they will go from being marginally effective to not really effective at all (which of course is why they aren't really carried in a non-nuclear navy).

The torpedo seekers are the last thing to do on my list of torpedo changes... so we've got a bit of time to think about these issues.

[LuftWolf]

Also, I am currently thinking about using the snake/circle selector button on the wireguided torpedoes to select between ASuW-only mode (under keel detonation fusing for the ADCAP and wakehoming mode for the UGST and 71nk). Other torpedoes will retain the snake and circle selection buttons.

The loss of the preset circle function will be compensated for by the ability to select reattack features using the enable button when the torpedo is on the wire. I'm trying to design this mod to pack as many features into the available interface space as possible to account for 85% of the way these weapons are used in game (or I hope will be when LWAMI4 is released), so my assumption here is that long range shots are done predominately using the straightrunning/snake function.

In all my time playing DW, I've never fired anything other than a airdropped torpedo using the circle search, then again, I don't fire torpedoes unless I know where they are going and what I want them to do when they get there, which is 100% of the time kill something (missiles are a different thing, however...).

[LuftWolf]

The vertical limits on the torpedo seeker sounds like a wonderful change. I also like the idea of giving the AI a bit of a hand by not limiting it quite so much for them. However, this does raise one question, in which catagory do the torpedoes for the FFG AI MH60 and SUBROCS fall? If the torpedo seekers are reduced for these weapons, they will go from being marginally effective to not really effective at all (which of course is why they aren't really carried in a non-nuclear navy).

Ah, I'll add the helical search pattern!

Ok, I'm going to replace the circle search pattern with a helical pattern that oscillates between 200-400ft below the set search depth (limited by the floor of the torpedo) and 200-400ft above the set search pattern (limited by the ceiling).

This fix, along with the verticle limits to the seeker cones will be for any weapon employed by the player either directly or indirectly (FFG AI MH60 or SUBROC).

Only the helical search pattern will be applied to strictly AI torpedoes (although some kind of broad limit on the AI verticle seeker dimensions may be employed).

Cheers,
David

[PeriscopeDepth]

Thanks guys. Mind boggling how many small changes that imrpove gameplay can be made. Will 4.0 include new platforms also?

PD

[LuftWolf]

Ok, I've done the helix search pattern. That was easy. :cool:

Cheers,
David

[OneShot]

I do like the idea in principle. However from an Airedale point of view I have some minor objections/problems to mention.

Since MAD/SAD are not able (unlike in Reality) to give you a pretty good clue how deep the sub is and since the GRAMs for the buoys are pretty small and all that, the only way of having at least a rough estimate where the sub is, would be by utilizing a layer. Means you can either say it is above or below the layer - and thats it.

If you reduce the seeker cones for the airborne torps you might render the platform ineffective or at least cripple it seriously. For example the Helo can carry as much as 3 torps (at max) - now given an area without a layer the helo might drop all 3 torps on one sub and still miss because he has absolutly no clue about the depth of the sub. And rearming takes one hell of a time. The P-3 is slightly better off in the torps load department, but restricted in other ways.

Anyway, bottom line for me ... the introduction of a vertical limit sounds like an interesting addition, however I would vote for a more expanded seeker cone on the air dropped torpedos (hey they are already at a disadvantage because you never have a wire) to keep the balance and avoid rendering the platforms ineffective.

Cheers
OS

[LuftWolf]

I've already got the Helix search function done.

The torpedo will search the searchdepth +/- 400ft, unless you limit it with the ceiling and floor functions, which you can also do if you feel that you have the depth of the contact more dialed in.

The snake function for all torpedoes will remain the same (in case you REALLY think you have the depth dialed in, this is the most direct and efficient way to attack).

The APR-3 that is dropped by the Stallion in LWAMI 4 will feature a *verticle* snake only, but will run straight along its initial bearing.

Cheers,
David

PS Due to the physics engine, some of the faster torpedoes have trouble changing depth and sometimes fight to get their depth control at the extremes of the oscillation, but this is probably realistic, and it works itself out... a 55kts mk50 has very small control surfaces for the speed and mass of the weapon (at least it appears to me). However, it works out that the torpedoes spend more time around the extremes of the oscillation, so it would probably be in the players best interest to dial the floor and ceiling for the search in as well as possible (at this point, other than to use the ceiling function to set the ASuW safety, I'm pretty sure I'm going to leave it so that the ceiling and floor only affect the search and not target tracking, so you can use them to dial in the helix search pattern and not worry that the target will go above or below that depth on evasion, other than surface, which would engage the ASuW safety).

[DivingWind]

Well DW just steped to another level! Good work!:up:

Only one thing bother me! How to improve that strange sub movement while surfacing, etc.

[LuftWolf]

Only one thing bother me! How to improve that strange sub movement while surfacing, etc.

Pray to the Executive Management of Sonalysts. :damn: :lol: :p

[LuftWolf]

One nice side effect of the helix pattern is that when the torpedoes start to home on their targets, they tend to be at a very high angle of attack, which gives the advantage of maximizing the surface area of the submarine explosed to their seekers when searching as well as giving them better attack geometry to avoid countermeasures.

This effect is even greater in faster torpedoes that tend to make their ascents and descents rapidly and then "coast" into their minimum or maximum depth before changing direction.

Interestingly, the Mk50, when it is very near the surface, will take a small movement upward before diving down very steeply... not at all intentional, and probably not something I can get rid of, but potentially actually useful.

Also, I'm convinced the changes to the physics model necessary for 1.04 will address this, so for the time being I am no too concerned, and will make changes as the patches come out, especially because the lighter and slightly slower Mk 54 makes a very smooth transition in a near perfect oscillation when moving in the helix pattern. I have tried to swap out doctrines and different combinations of things to no avail... so I think there is some parameters in the physics different between the torpedoes in the database I didn't check like drag, etc.

In any case, the actual depth transitions are probably about the same, its just the angles of attack for the torpedoes are noticably different, leading it to appear their transitional movements are more dissimilar than they really are.

Both are extremely lethal it would appear if used properly, so I think you airdales will be fine, Oneshot. :) :know:

[Molon Labe]

When you said "straight runner" re the Stallion, did you mean chaning it from a ballistic to cruising flight profile? If so, I don't like it, I think these are regarded as ballistic weapons...

[LuftWolf]

The APR-3 torpedo payload of the Stallion will run straight along its launch bearing (relative to the path of the missile that fired it) with a vertical snake.

Of course, the Stallion will remain a ballistic missile.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

(is it true that Type-89 torp is electric one ? with SUCH speed ? then WOW :o)Looking at NavWeaps - there aren't many sites that list anything on the Type 89...

From a plausibility standpoint, I find it incomprehensible that you think it is more likely that a Japanese electric torpedo can do 20 knots more than the DM2A4 that is 10 years newer (and both use silver-zinc) than the idea of a Russian middleweight electric torpedo that is almost three times the mass of the Mu-90 and has more than three times the non-warhead mass (250-50=200 vs 720-60=660 - which goes into things like propulsion and the battery space) might just be able to crawl out 7 more km than the Mu-90 at slow speed.

Other sources suggest it is thermal (http://babriet.tripod.com/articles/art_hominginstinct.htm), which is much more likely considering the speed and range involved.

Probably, you fell into Tony's (webmaster of NavWeaps and Warships1) old anti-plagiarism canary trap:
Since I started these weapon webpages in 1997, I have occasionally come across other websites that have plagiarized their content. Let me offer a friendly warning: On each of my webpages, there is a deliberate error in the data in one place or another. These errors are trivial, but they make it quite easy for me to detect copying.

It is not there anymore, but was when NavWeaps was still the weapons pages of Warships1.com - and the pages hadn't been updated that much since then - mostly pictures added but if the text changed substantially I never saw it happen.

The "silver-zinc" stuff is almost certainly the set-trap. As an aside, I'm pretty sure the set-trap for the Russian Post-WWII torp page is most likely the "solid-fuel turbojet" for the APR-3 (maybe a solid fuel driving a pumpjet, but a turbojet?) It seems like the mistakes are deliberate set absurdly so as to snare stupid, lazy copiers but not lead honest, smart people into ingesting false data.

I entirely agree with the elevation idea, BTW.

The APR-3 torpedo payload of the Stallion will run straight along its launch bearing (relative to the path of the missile that fired it) with a vertical snake.

Of course, the Stallion will remain a ballistic missile.

Oh, good. I almost feel like Christmas now - I'm getting a bunch of wishes solved at once. The vertical snake sounds really good because as it is, we can't set which side of the layer a SUBROC's torp drops in :D

Anyway, bottom line for me ... the introduction of a vertical limit sounds like an interesting addition, however I would vote for a more expanded seeker cone on the air dropped torpedos (hey they are already at a disadvantage because you never have a wire) to keep the balance and avoid rendering the platforms ineffective.

As a sub driver, I think the fact you can be right over the top of me (and AFAIK I won't hear you because we IIRC disabled it to avoid hearing missiles as they flew atop the water or somethin) and drop your torps at point blank range plenty of penance for the fact you don't have a wire.

[LuftWolf]

Well, since the Japanese don't export their technology, to the best of my knowledge, they are free to upgrade whatever they want at any time and any price and no one would know the difference.

Germany, Russia, and the United States (to some degree) have export considerations that are factored into their design.

The Type 89 might cost an absurd amount of money per round, I dunno what the major limiting cost factor for an electric heavyweight torpedo might be, but I wouldn't count out the capabilities of the Japanese to engineer warmaking equipment.

[LuftWolf]

Your source is pretty good there is seems Kaz.

I'm actually going to go with the Type 89 being thermal, and I'm also going to reduce it's snake pattern.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Well, since the Japanese don't export their technology, to the best of my knowledge, they are free to upgrade whatever they want at any time and any price and no one would know the difference.

Actually, the failure to export is not really an advantage. The ability to export means lowering costs due to economy of scale and the ability to get someone else to test out your weapons - maybe even in real combat without any "personal" risk to yourself.

They are also limited by how they have 1% GNP, and that everything in Japan costs so much, exacerberated by how they deny themselves economy of scale to preserve the production line - weapons crawl out.

The Type 89 might cost an absurd amount of money per round, I dunno what the major limiting cost factor for an electric heavyweight torpedo might be, but I wouldn't count out the capabilities of the Japanese to engineer warmaking equipment.

I won't count them out either. In fact, if it can do 30km at 70 knots with a thermal motor, that's already a very impressive capability. In kinematics at least, it will be clearly superior to the early British Spearfish (23000 at 60+) and pre-ADCAP Mk48 (32000 at 55), not to mention the UGST, and arguably superior even to the later variants of either (whose estimated range capabilities are not as well defined, but there is only so much you can do to increase efficiency in a basic design and fuel and the drag will go up immensely due to the increased speed, so it'd be a nut to chew just to assume they can keep their old ranges at their new max speeds).

What turns "impressive" into "ten foot giant" is the idea they can do it with electrics, with silver-zinc batteries no less...

[LuftWolf]

Well, I already said that I think it is indeed a thermal torpedo and will model it as such. :)

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Well, I can't see you reply while I'm replying myself. Maybe next time I'd push the Refresh button to check before committing.:D

[Amizaur]

I don't know if Type-89 is electric torp. I find hard to believe that this not newest weapon could get 70kts on electric batteries and with a good range!
The best current electric HWT the Black Shark is capable of 50+ kts (not more, you can't get enough power output from batteries to get more) with good range, and it's batteries are for sure more modern than those of Type-89. So for me either it's not electric or doesn't have such speed...

Oneshot - to check depth of sub target, maybe overfly it few times at different alts and see where you stop getting MAD signal ? And with spiral search pattern (circling and going down) you don't have to know exact tgt depth, just if you set correct depth torpedo will get there faster, without spiraling. I would vote for realistic seeker cones for air dropped torps.

LW - to be sure we are thinking about same things :-)
I think you are talking about spiral pattern going down and up ? Helical is straight but "snakeing in both bearing and alt" like a horizontal screw, something like very streatched horizontal spiral... for air dropped it would be spiral I think - it would circle but descent all the time slowly, or second option is to simply increase depth after each circle by 100-200fts or so.

About APR-3 - the reason it searches without starting up it's engine is first that it has limited range, and even more limited running time, so it searches falling gravitational in the water. If it did few circles on engine, it would probably burn out fuel before intercepting target. Second reason would be that active seeker would have very limited range at speed of over 70kts (wahsed out), but it can detect far when torp is slowly descending gravitationally, that's why so big (for Russian torp) det range up to 2.5km probably. When it detects target it starts it's engine and runs for intercept, quite possible that it reaquires it only from shorter range at full speed.

So I would try to emulate the real way it works, it's a pity that we can't set a buoyancy for torpedos then it could fall down slowly without engine... all can be done probably is emulate torp fuel and range limits by doctrine calcs and run it first at 10kts or so searching, only after detection set max spd and count range (or rather mission time) from that moment. I'm not sure than very fast but short ranged APR can be usefull in straight running mode for SUBROCs, and what if it falls bahind or by side of the target ? And if you set it to fall short, it may be too short for it's small range...

To prevent very fast torps (over 55kts) from doing strange things while turning, you have to increase it's database turn radius slightly, untill it behaves correctly. If you remember there was a problem with stock 65kts Type-40 torpedo, not only the torp speed bug was showing, but it was doing "vertical snake" while running sometimes, couldn't stabilise on it's depth...
Little (10-20%) increase of turn radius corrected the problem.

For ADCAP active seeker without snake the cone would be 60deg horizontal and 25-30deg vertica... What is wide snake in passive mode for ? To see it's passive ? OK but why wide ? Passive seekers in db always had wider cones than active, but 60deg (+/-60 so 120deg) like for active seems more than enaugh, if you want snake pattern to show it's in passive mode, maybe left the 30deg snake, not wider ? It's already limited in speed to 40kts in passive mode, 45deg snake reduces effective speed significantly... By the way, I set active speed limit in doctrine to 55kts, if you allow ADCAP to have higher max speed (some people estimate it for 63kts based on ADCAPs engine available max fuel flows) then it would be transit only, after active enable it would slow down to 55kts anyway :-). Maybe I would make it to speed up to max again when homing and tgt being closer than 1000yd (from this range it should keep target track even slightly washed out).... hmm nice idea, you'd see that torp is going for kill by observing terminal speed change :)

About Naval Weps and anti-plagiarism canary trap: the APSET-95 entry with absurd values can be this just well :-) also some torpedo calibers are off (easily noticeable error).

[Molon Labe]

The APR-3 torpedo payload of the Stallion will run straight along its launch bearing (relative to the path of the missile that fired it) with a vertical snake.

Of course, the Stallion will remain a ballistic missile.

Wouldn't a circle/helix make more sense for something dropped from above????

[LuftWolf]

LW - to be sure we are thinking about same things :-)
I think you are talking about spiral pattern going down and up ? Helical is straight but "snakeing in both bearing and alt" like a horizontal screw, something like very streatched horizontal spiral... for air dropped it would be spiral I think - it would circle but descent all the time slowly, or second option is to simply increase depth after each circle by 100-200fts or so.

Gotcha. Well that is a little bit more difficult to model using what we've got, but too much so... I'll think I can just add the depth control function to the snake pattern and we'll have just this.... or maybe just a big mess. Well, that's the fun!


About APR-3 - the reason it searches without starting up it's engine is first that it has limited range, and even more limited running time, so it searches falling gravitational in the water. If it did few circles on engine, it would probably burn out fuel before intercepting target. Second reason would be that active seeker would have very limited range at speed of over 70kts (wahsed out), but it can detect far when torp is slowly descending gravitationally, that's why so big (for Russian torp) det range up to 2.5km probably. When it detects target it starts it's engine and runs for intercept, quite possible that it reaquires it only from shorter range at full speed.


Ok, here's the problem, I have to keep the range of the APR consistent with the range the AI should be firing them at. If I have the torpedo start out its already limit range at a slow or very slow speed, it will eat up a large amount of its already limited range and then when it fires its rocket it will shutdown almost immediately. Also, given the fact that the ***torpedo doctrine cannot undergo a state change when newtrack*** I can't do the terminal homing speed mod, at least not on target tracks if we want the torpedo to slow down again.

To simulate at this point the idea that torpedoes can outspeed their active sensors represents a major change in design this late in the game for me, and only for a limited number of torpedoes that also happen to be the most advanced (Spearfish, ADCAP, Type 89, APR family), and of course this only comes up as an issue because of our ability to push the phsyics engine past 55kts for torpedoes. For the Player ADCAP, this ought to be fairly straightward. I want to add a PassiveEnabled and ActiveEnabled variable set anyway, so the hard part is getting it to work with the physics, although I had to tackle this anyway for the passiveenable function.

This sucks to know at this point for the rest to do this, but I can, so I will.


For ADCAP active seeker without snake the cone would be 60deg horizontal and 25-30deg vertica... What is wide snake in passive mode for ? To see it's passive ? OK but why wide ? Passive seekers in db always had wider cones than active, but 60deg (+/-60 so 120deg) like for active seems more than enaugh, if you want snake pattern to show it's in passive mode, maybe left the 30deg snake, not wider ? It's already limited in speed to 40kts in passive mode, 45deg snake reduces effective speed significantly...


The reason I would do this is to allow the player to fire a passive torpedo to linger in an area, something like the circle pattern that is being removed, but in my opinion more effective in searching an area, although less so in blocking a path, although using torpedoes like that is not necessarily in my personal tactical doctrine. :p

[LuftWolf]

The APR-3 torpedo payload of the Stallion will run straight along its launch bearing (relative to the path of the missile that fired it) with a vertical snake.

Of course, the Stallion will remain a ballistic missile.

Wouldn't a circle/helix make more sense for something dropped from above????

The Stallion is for use at long range... if the target is at long range, you probably don't have anything but a bearing. Thus, with a weapon as short ranged as the APR if you can estimate your lead, firing a straight shot weapon with a verticle snake (or helix) is more effective than a circle torpedo, since you have a wider margin of error on the one parameter you have the least information about, range.

In fact these weapons ought to be VERY effective, that's why its good that the range and seekers are very limited.

The non-SUBROC version of these weapons on the Helix and other russian ASW aircraft will retain the normal circle/helix function.

[LuftWolf]

Ok, here's what I'm going to do with helix function, assuming I can get it to work right.

All LWT's will have a verical change applied to them for the snake mode as well, which is the helix I believe amizaur was talking about. They will also retain the depth change on the circle mode as I set it currently.

For the player, you can set the Floor and Ceiling to be within 200ft of each other, and that will disable the depth change on searchdepth.

Another good reason why I've been waiting to do the database.

This would be a great time however to get ALL the ideas out... so anyone have anything else for the torpedoes in LWAMI4, I really need to finish this!

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

Sometimes, it really is better to be lucky than good.

The oscillating depth search function that I scripted for the circle search, works perfectly with the snake search function as well!

So now, the only change I need to make it to assign the LWT's in the database separate doctrines with the variable depth search and give the HWT's a doctrine without these features.

Oh happy day.

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

Ok, here's the problem with the active homing speed reduction.

The APR has to move at its max speed right off the bat and it always enables right away, since it has such a short range. That means it has to have a seeker that can track at 68kts, even if it has a limited range.

So does that mean the ADCAP, Spearfish, and Type 89, amongst the most advanced *heavyweight* torpedoes in the world can't track at under 65kts? (which is the max speed I'm going to have for these, probably 60-61 for ADCAP and Type 89 and 65-66kts for spearfish, whatever the physics lets me do).

I find that inconsistency problematic. And given that these torpedo are thermal torpedes anyway, this will only come into play when they are near the surface anyway, since the depth limits their speed, these torpedoes will rarely be over 60kts when they are running.

I've come to the conclusion that this sensor speed washout is really only an issue because these torpedoes have very large sprint out speeds that we can't even model because of the phsyics engine. Yes, if we could have a 80kts running spearfish and 70kts running adcap, then yes, I would obviouly impliment this, but at this point, I'm not convinced that an adcap can't track over 55kts, at least to some degree.

So, at this point, given that we are only looking at 60-63 kts ADCAP near surface only and 65-66kts running Spearfish near the surface only, and a APR that cannot have these features, I'm not going to impliment the Active Homing Speed limits. I'm also going with the idea that just about everything in the game has some plausible "upgrade margin", since we are simply adding new things entirely in other places.

For those of you who are diehard realists, I encourage you to try to mod, and see if what you make is 1) fun to make 2) fun to play. I'm having a blast doing this, so as long as I'm having fun, I'm going to feel the need to take liscense when it's a matter of hours of scripting for 3kts in limited circumstances. :)

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

Ok, here's the problem, I have to keep the range of the APR consistent with the range the AI should be firing them at. If I have the torpedo start out its already limit range at a slow or very slow speed, it will eat up a large amount of its already limited range and then when it fires its rocket it will shutdown almost immediately. Also, given the fact that the ***torpedo doctrine cannot undergo a state change when newtrack*** I can't do the terminal homing speed mod, at least not on target tracks if we want the torpedo to slow down again.

Then again, there is nothing saying that the APR can't be modelled as a "oneshot" weapon, it doesn't really have any kind of range to be reattacking anything... and in fact this is how it works in real life... So perhaps I could start it out at something like 50kts, and only set maxspeed on newtrack... in this case, the loss of range on slow speed would be somewhat limited.

However, in regards to the other torpedoes, the margine of error for the data on all the reports is larger than the current values, in other words, the cost to benefit both from the player perspective and the design perspective is simply not there, especially because I believe a slightly higher homing speed than reported is a reasonable compromise for not being able to have a genuine sprintout feature.

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

Ok, I've got the APR working the way everyone wants.

It's a pretty lethal torpedo, but can easily be outmaneovered if you are able to place a decoy and then clear the very small datum it is capable of attacking. After torpedo speed up on newtrack, it's not likely that it will be able to reattack anything but its first target, but if you remain dead in its path, your likelihood of being tagged again is good the torpedo is headed dead at you. In my testing, I saw a SW drop a decoy on a Stallion launch, the APR hit about 2500 yards in front of the decoy and helixed forward, after picking up the decoy the torpedo speed up to 69kts and moved in on the decoy. The SW was clearing the missile launch, not the torpedo itself, so it was not on a good position to when the torpedo finally hit the water and was somewhat behind the decoy on the torpedoes vector.

After burning through the decoy, it detected the submarine again (I haven't done the 3-d seekers yet or disabled the research functions yet for the APR, but the last one is easy work, I just have to restore the bug from the SC doctrine :p ) and although it had some time to go deep it wound up passing right over the SW at about 600ft.

Although, I've also seen other SW's that didn't react to the missile launch get totally blown away. :)

[LuftWolf]

I also have the option of forcing the torpedo to ignore anything but its first track, which is plausible since it could possibly use a medium aspect seeking active sonar and a very high intensity yet very narrowly focused homing active sonar seeker, in which case it would stay deadlocked on the first target and totally ignore other targets, but the initial target could still out maneover the torpedo.

In this case, avoiding these torpedoes would simply be an issue of making sure there are some decoys between you and the torpedo, but on the other hand, if you get caught unaware with an on target shot, you are mostly likely dead.

It's up to you guys.

However, since I can't shutdown the sensor without having the torpedo lose its track and thus not work, right now the torpedo is too easy to decoy after it has gotten the correct target initially. So I'm going to make this change.

Keep in mind the torpedo is going to be limited in range and seeker, so it rewards very good shots, rather than spray and pray tactics.

[Amizaur]

Hey LW

I have to read everything once again later, but few words now...

About limited APR range, that slow movement mode eats - well, it shouldn't as range in DW is range limited not time limited... so making 1nm at slow speed eats only 1nm, not more. Second thing is that best solution would be to set range in excess in db and control range limits from doctrine, by fuel calcs. Slow mode at start (10kts for example) would not use fuel at all, and would be noiseless too (by db thrust profile). Of course the slow descent while searching is useless when you are modelling it as straight running torp, then best option then is to run at max and search forward.... I doubt APR can use different speeds than max, after it ignites it's solid fuel engine, it can't reduce it or disable, it probably runs only at max after ignition.

Back to the real circling mode - the only problem I see to implement it in DW is that APR with 68kts max speed should have turn radius increased to ensure smooth running. With increased turn radius it would take it looong time to make full circle or few full circles at 10kts. On the other hand you wouldn't hear it... but it would take very long time to do the circle search. The solution would be to give it two sensors... in fact even more than two (like in SCX's ADCAP). Well take a look at SCX ADCAP and it's doctrine. First "sensor" would be all-around, divided into 6 separate 60deg sensors, each looking at different side, all together giving 360deg coverage. The weapon would be set to 10kts (it could be set that it's minimum speed with zero noise is 10kts in thrusts profile) and dive straight down (it already points down after drom). Sensors would be enabled in sequence to search all around in some time. When target is detected, torpedo sets full speed and uses last homing sensor (normal one, forward looking) to home at it. Complicated, but should work just like SCX's ADCAP worked - Thomas emulated beam forming and searching not instantly whole cone but narrow parts of it sequentially.

About active search speed limit - where is the problem ??? This function was already implemented in my doctrines. In various sources (some of them are in "recommended reads") I found suggestions that max range search is done at reduced speed, to reduce sensor washout. Modern torp sensors can work at max speed, but it's range then is always tradeoff, not as long than at slower speed. So sprint at max speed to enable point, slow down some to get good sonar pefrormance and search, and after lock, if you have no problem in keeping it, it may speed up again... can you check range to tgt from doctrine while homing ? I'm not sure... is target only valid when newtrack ? I forget that... Well if yes, then torpedo would speed up to max just when homing, not in last 1000yds or so. Only for active search it would slow to MaxActiveSpeed, after acquiring tgt it would again go max speed. Simple and shows that torp has something :-). And yes, the 63kts max speed would give some "margin" in achieving 55kts at depth, it would be capable of 55kts down to few hundred feets probably.

P.S. Hmm why can't I change object type from torp to depth charge in DWEdit ?? grr... I wondered if a torp worked still if I changed it's type to depth charge, it should have negative buoyancy then... :-)

P.S. Please don't change weapon parameters (range) to make it better for AI !! APR is very short-ranged weapon. I's very very fast in exchange. I hope you don't plan to make it torpedo-ranged rocket-speed object, because such thing don't exist in reality and there are good reasons (physics) for it... If it don't work for AI with real parameters, then it's only possible to return to UMGT-1 torpedo, only "upgrade" it a little...

[LuftWolf]

Perhaps in the future, but the diminishing returns are rapidly approaching for work on AI doctrines.

I need to finish the AI changes in the database and move on to the player torpedoes and sensors.

Refinements such as these are definately possible in the future, but I am personally up against my limits in some regards without taking some distance from the work and seeing it in operation. From the perspect of a designer, I need to see the whole prototype machine in motion before there can be any further changes to the design, this is strictly my own limitation.

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

About active search speed limit - where is the problem ??? This function was already implemented in my doctrines. In various sources (some of them are in "recommended reads") I found suggestions that max range search is done at reduced speed, to reduce sensor washout. Modern torp sensors can work at max speed, but it's range then is always tradeoff, not as long than at slower speed. So sprint at max speed to enable point, slow down some to get good sonar pefrormance and search, and after lock, if you have no problem in keeping it, it may speed up again... can you check range to tgt from doctrine while homing ? I'm not sure... is target only valid when newtrack ? I forget that... Well if yes, then torpedo would speed up to max just when homing, not in last 1000yds or so. Only for active search it would slow to MaxActiveSpeed, after acquiring tgt it would again go max speed. Simple and shows that torp has something :-). And yes, the 63kts max speed would give some "margin" in achieving 55kts at depth, it would be capable of 55kts down to few hundred feets probably.

The reason this cannot be done is the same reason torpedoes used to run straight after losing their track without a detonation: the torpedo doctrine does not properly reference LostTracks from the TorpHoming doctrine (as worked properly in SC), of this I am very sure.

The good news is that we can program whatever we want in the main torpedo doctrine because it will be overridden when there is a track that is following the torphoming doctrine, and the main torpedo doctrine automatically takes control again when the torpedo loses its track and the torphoming doctrine shuts down.

To get around this is a major issue I'm not prepared to tackle at this point, and like I said, I think a higher than reported search speed for the best torpedoes is acceptable because we cannot model their top speeds properly for "sprint out" attacks.

Cheers,
David

[Amizaur]

Yes, I understand entirely. It's a lot of work for single object. But maybe like in SS-N-27 ASM case, I'll take it and make APR sensors and doctrine (because it's an interesting task) and you could add then to 4.1 or something...

[LuftWolf]

Make sure you see my last post before your last reply. :)

[LuftWolf]

Yes, I understand entirely. It's a lot of work for single object. But maybe like in SS-N-27 ASM case, I'll take it and make APR sensors and doctrine (because it's an interesting task) and you could add then to 4.1 or something...

Yes, that'd be good, you are really better than I am at making very advanced features. :know:

[LuftWolf]

Ok, some good news. The turn radius for torpedoes with their maxspeed set at 61 or less can be left at 100.

So only the turn radius of the APR family has to be increased (to 170), which is perfect, because this torpedo is not suppose to be all that maneoverable at top speed, which means even if it tags you, you can still escape.

In fact, I saw an AI SW evade one of these weapons in a test by out turning it... so if the AI can do it, I know you guys can. :)

As a side note, I've changed the thrust profile of the Shkval so that it has a reasonably low PSL when it is launched and then does not get very loud until it fires its rocket engine. Also, the APR family is very loud as well, especially at top speed, almost as loud as the Shkval, so combined with the fact that the APR-3S on the Stallion runs its search along a set vector, you need to be sure there is no one at some distance away tracking your torpedo to fix a distance on the missile launch transient and the path of the torpedo. Also, you need to be very accurate with your range estimate or you won't hit anything. However, if you get your shot right, you've got a very good shot of killing your target.

Cheers,
David

[SeaQueen]

ADCAP ...................... 45 ........................ 20-25
UGST ........................ 40 ........................ 20
Mk-50 ....................... 35 ........................ 15-20
the rest * .................. 30 ........................ 15

* (playable USET-80, TEST-71, UGMT-1, MPT-1UE)


I am under the impression that the the vertical pattern of signal excess for a torpedo's sonar depends less on the beam patterns of the torpedoes and more on the sound speed profile. Hence, a searching torpedo in a surface duct of appropriate cutoff frequency might potentially detect anything in the duct out to a certain distance, one set below the duct might have a shorter detection range against targets on the same depth or above it, and a longer detection range for targets underneath it.

[LuftWolf]

SQ, I believe there are absolute aperature limits on the vertical dimensions of the torpedo seeker along the lines that Amizaur is presenting... however, within the depth band of the seeker, what you are saying is correct, I believe.

Two more quick things I wanted to run by you guys.

I am changing the loadout of the FFG AI MH60 as follows: ASW will load 3 Mk50's, this configuration is for use in deep water; ASuW will load two Mk54's and one Penguin ASM for use in the littorals, and Strike will load eight Hellfires for use as strike missiles or ASM's, and I am changing the parameters of the Hellfire to allow these missiles to be fired more than one at a time, since now the MH60 can only have one Hellfire in the air at once, since it makes more sense in the context of the mod for the Navy to have the true fire and forget version of the Hellfire, so that's what I am modding (rather than the lazerguided version modelled now).

Also, I am thinking of restoring the range hardcap on the SW WAA array... SQ or anyone else, do you know if there are absolute range limits on WAA arrays that are worth simulating in the context of DW?

[LuftWolf]

And, of course, the whole issue of bearing errors on the user sonars...

Amizaur, what do you think about having all TA's have a bearing error set at 1, hull arrays set at 2, and sphere arrays set at 3? (with a lower number being more bearing error based on settings in the database)

Cheers,
David

[Amizaur]

Don't know, didn't tested it in gameplay... You can start with 2 for all, or go for 1 TA, 2 SA, no change or 2 for hull and see what happens in playtest
(hull arrays are rarely used but some, like WAA, have rather good bearing angularity :-) reducing WAA would increase it's range prediction error...

[LuftWolf]

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_PostWWII.htm

Lockheed Martin has recently won a contract to adapt their LongShot® Wing Adapter Kit to the Mark 54. This is a discardable wing assembly that allows the launch of various munitions including mines and torpedoes from high altitudes and at long standoff ranges. Currently, ASW aircraft such as the P-3 have to make a time-consuming descent from their surveillance altitudes of 30,000 feet (9,100 m) to a release altitude of 300 - 1,000 feet (90 - 300 m) in order to launch a torpedo. Quoting from a 13 June 2006 Lockheed Martin Press Release: "The LongShot is a low-cost, self-contained wing adaptor kit that provides range extension and autonomous guidance to a family of existing air-to-surface munitions, including sea mines, gravity bombs, laser-guided bombs and tactical munitions dispensers. No aircraft modification is required to deploy a LongShot equipped munition. The system is completely self-contained, including a flight control computer, a GPS-based navigation system and power sources and does not require an electrical interface with the aircraft."

I think this is a good reason not to put limits on the torpedo or buoy launch at this point. Especially given that there are other balancing factors in place now for the Air vs. Sub game.


@Amizaur, so you think 1 for the TA's is too much?

[Amizaur]

@Amizaur, so you think 1 for the TA's is too much?

Sorry :oops: I meaned "1 for TA" not "3 for TA", 3 is current value... I corrected my post above.

[LuftWolf]

I've got a few more things that need to be done to tune the AI doctrines based on my testing, so I haven't started the player torpedo doctrines yet, but rest assured it's being worked over in my mind. :)

Also, I'm considering limiting the AI torpedo sensors along the same lines as the player torpedo sensors since the depth search mod is pretty effective, but that means I need to make sure ALL the search parameters get set correctly by the AI for each situation. In any case, these should be done as well as possible, and then the sensors can be made to conform to the limits of what the AI is capable of doing, rather than choosing before we try that it can't be done right. :smug:

Cheers,
David

[jsteed]

Hi Amizaur,

The meaning of the numbers on the sensor Error Range variable are as follows:
0 = no error
1 = 3-5 deg @ 10kyd
2 = 2-4 deg @ 20kyd
3 = 1-3 deg @ 30kyd
4 = 0-2 deg @ 40kyd

These are the only valid values.

cheers, jsteed

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Also, I am thinking of restoring the range hardcap on the SW WAA array... SQ or anyone else, do you know if there are absolute range limits on WAA arrays that are worth simulating in the context of DW?

I won't know that. I do vaguely remember from the old 688 manual ages back though, that one principle WAA is supposed to work is by measuring the curvature of the sound wave - short range you perceive a lot of curve, long range none. Using this theory, it is reasonable that beyond a certain, classified point, the curvature will become too small to work with even with a loud signal - no matter how loud it is, the signal is too "flat" to analyze with any confidence.

Unless range prediction error can be modeled to dramatically increase after a certain distance, something that I doubt, it is probably better to just hardcap it. The hull array is used on SW because of its WAA modes. Just say the computer won't bother guessing after 15000 yards (IIRC, 15000 was the original setting) - it is pretty amazing there is still enough curve after 15K for any kind of guess to be made based on curvature after all...

[LuftWolf]

It was actually 27431 meters originally, or 15nm. :)

Thanks, yeah, we probably should have left that as it was... we'll definately restore the cap, but the values are up in the air at this point.

Cheers,
David

[Amizaur]

Whatm russian ASM missile profiles was I to check ? Because there is lot of them and it's quite a work to check every source I have for each. Please list missiles you'd need flight profiles and seeker details know.

As for AS-4 - the initial version was active guided from, or actualy before launch - the target was locked when missile was still under the plane from 200-270km out !! So rather powerfull seeker. Later versions had inertial/active radar guidance, not sure what was range of the seeker but it's same huge missile so rather long - probably at 60km from target, when missile started the dive, target was already locked. I suspect lock range >100km.
It has it's drawbacks, as long time for ship ECM countermeasures to break the lock and jam the radar seeker, well modern ECM would be probably very effective against such old (first versions in '60s, later in '70s) radar seeker, probably would jam it completly and I don't expect home on jam mode in such old missile. But against civilian shipping (like tankers) or ships in convoys would be still effective today.
The most recent versions carried by Tu-22M2/M3 had more flight profiles, for example low launch (from 500m up) with ballistic climb and high altitude cruise, low launch and flight with very reduced range (and probably speed too, as 4 mach missile would toast from air friction at low alt)... The "low profile" in case of AS-4 means 12.000m cruise and final attack run at "<500m" altitude :-)

In the middle of the '80s the AS-15 in nuclear and anti-radar version were introduced for Tu-22Ms, with up to 10 missiles for plane (6 in bay, 4 under wings) with VERY high flight profile/very steep dive attack, in middle of '90s the anti-ship version could have been introduced for Tu-22Ms and this would be much more challenging threat for AEGIS - 10 small missiles per plane diving at high angle from 120.000ft at Mach 5, than 1 or two per plane huge monsters cruising at Mach 4 and 70.000ft... AS-15S (anti-ship variant) is new weapon and wasn't exported yet AFAIK. But Kh-31/AS-17 Krypton anti-ship variant can be found in China's arsenal for their Su-27/30s. China bought them and was negotiating licence production.

The AS-4 missiles were very troublesome (very large, heavy, flight and landing restrictions, toxic fuel) and probably are not used anymore in Russia. May be in the future on India's arsenal if they lease Tu-22M bombers... Selling of Tu-22s for China doesn't seem likely as it's potential enemy for both India and Russia itself, so probably no chinese AS-4s.
AS-6 is reporded as not exported and withdrawn from service in Russia.

[LuftWolf]

Hey guys, thanks to a question from a gent over in the mod forum, I just tested whether or not new playable ships can be added to existing playable classes, like the Jimmy Carter for example, and guess what! They can! It's selectable from the menu and everything.

So, I'm going to add the Jimmy Carter for LWAMI4... are there any Akula Imp I/II or Kilos missing from the game? I'm going to check myself, but if you guys can help me with some of the legwork. :)

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

AND...

If the TIW message for underwater missile launches works out... one consequence of the way I'm going to do it means I can increase the altitude hardcaps again for submarine sonars, meaning aircraft and helicopters will once again be detectable on sonar when they are close to the surface.

I REALLY need to finish these torpedoes... I've got a list of at least 50 other things I want to change on top of that!

[LuftWolf]

Ok. I'm taking an afternoon break from the serious work of doing torpedoes, and I'm going to try my hand at changing up some of the playable platforms to give the Red side in particular more hull choices. This really doesn't do anything in terms of game balance except give the player more choices (= more fun), so it deviates a bit from the best available information, but nothing is out of thin air.

The first thing I'm going to do is change the ugly-ass SSN designation for the Russian platforms... Russian submarines should be K-331 and B-529 so forth.

I'm also going to add: two Russian Kilo Imp (B-880 Del'fin and B-529), 9 Russian Kilo Standard submarines, three additional Akula II Gepard-standard submarines (Kugar, Kaban, Rys... I'm of course assuming the Russians found the money and built them), two additional Akula Imp I (Nerpa, and one other technically the Samara but that name is already taken for some reason by a Akula I in the database, and I can't delete without making backwards compatibility an issue, so I'm going to give it simply the designation K-591), three Chinese Kilo Imp KLUB capable hulls like the 368 (369, 370, 371, thus giving the Chinese the eight submarines they are reported to have ordered from the Russians), and also the SeaWolf hull SSN23 Jimmy Carter.

Once the rest of the mod work is done, I'm going to add many other non-playable platforms, regardless of whether or not I have models for them (I'll just use the next best available until there is a model available for that platform). The model makers Xabba, TLAM, and Aaken have sent me things on numerous occasions, so I need to make good on getting them in the game if they are ready.

Cheers,
David

PS It's not yet entirely proven if adding these playable hulls will result in some kind of problems... so we'll see. :)

[LuftWolf]

Well, the added platforms seem to be working just fine. :)

Nice. :|\\

So, there will be a lot more choices for players and mission designers in LWAMI4 when it comes to playable hull choices. I think most notable are the additions of three more Chinese Kilo Imp KLUB capable hulls (for a total of four) and three new Akula II Modified (Gepard) hulls (for a total of four). Also, all the Kilo hulls have proper names and number designations, rather than just "Kilo 1".

Also, as an aid to players, I changed the class name of the standard Chinese Kilos from "Kilo" to "Kilo EKM", to reflect the fact that they are actually an updated version of the standard kilo with some additional quieting measures.

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

A little update after a bit more digging... I replaced the K-267 Samara as a Akula I with the K-412 Morzh (so nothing deleted, only names changed to preserve compatibility) and made the K-267 a playable Akula Imp I (since it actually is an Imp) in place of the K-591 (a designation that I used as a stopgap...).

Ok, that should make everyone happy. :)

Cheers,
David