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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In general, I do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOPE

And I like to drink alot. :yep:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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