Well I just did a test, a p-3 dropping a lightweight torpedo on a 688i and it scores 100% damage with lwami. It seems just too powerful.
Now on the other hand, its true the other mod does tone down a little bit too much some weapons. Same exercise, a p-3 charging a 688i took me 3 lightweight torpedos to sink.
I think *good average values* should be in between those 2 extremes.

thats what ive done - ive made it a good balance i think. However, the 688i is nothing special, no double hull, could it really stand up to a 100 kg shaped charge? Realism is more important than balance, and SCS always had Mk50s sinking 688s with a single hit like LWMAI. However, in the changes i made to RA a single Mk50 will criple, but not always sink a 688.

what i can do is set to work testing and refineing the damage vaules to find the best realism i can with the data i can take from SCS 1.04, LWAMI, and online information to tweak the damages for realisic levels, then if subguru could host the file it would be can easy fix to the otherwise good RA. Kind of like taking LWAMI and mixing it with RA, but keeping the great RA doctine and units.

Pls share your work in the end. Sounds interesting

Hmm it's supposed to be a secret but the 688i is using plasma shield :damn:


:rotfl:

Well, I hadn't really checked the damage, but I should have been more sensitivity when missiles keep hitting my Udaloy with so little effect.

Looking at it, RA pretty much just uses the 1kg warhead = 1 point damage system (though why are the Harpoons only 90?) Which is OK. The real problem is how much variation there is in survivability with different ships in different conditions that using one number just doesn't work.

For example, it actually makes some sense for the a shaped charge torpedo like the Mk50 not to sink a Kilo, or even for Spearfish not to bag a Typhoon.

The issue is that the shaped charge quickly punches a hole in the sub, and THEN the water floods in, but not so much the blast. At under 100m, the compartmentalization might hold (that's what it is there for) and with the reserve buoyancy the sub may well survive (though it won't be doing much fighting). However, at a bit over 100m, the chances fall to zero because most of the internal compartments are only rated for 100m (not full pressure) and so as the compartment floods at great depth it starts going into other compartments...

Meanwhile, the same Mk50 would certainly spell the doom for any submerged US submarine at any depth too deep to VERY quickly patch the hole in the hull since Thresher with their 3 compartment layout and a low reserve buoyancy. The compartment is holed, it floods, it sinks.

I would suggest, therefore, instead of fiddling with the damage, you focus on fiddling with the survivability scores.

I think, except for a few select subs, ANY torpedo hit will likely mission kill you anyways. And I don't think depth is a variable that DW calculates when damaged?

PD

A mission kill for a human, not AI. I mostly fly ASW, but keep in mind im not anti-submarine either, im just looking for the best realism thats all. Ill set to work on it this weekend/next week, let you know how it goes and share it with you all, i think it will work very well. However, one suggested i change the "survivability" of each unit, what did you mean by that? As far as i can tell all i can model is damage done and units "total" health. As for 1 kg to 1 hit point, thats a poor system to model the effects of taking direct hits which blow a hole in the hull... and the rest we know from there. Im going to try to get it the best i can, where a very light non-shaped charge torp ( cant remember number.. A244 or something ) will be very unlikly to sink say a 688 with a single hit, but the advanced mk50 and 54s can and will most of the time, yet will have less of an effect on the heavys such as tyhoon with the double hull. And yes, the DDs will be sinkable again.

:hmm:

i think if you guys continue on this path of discussion about RA, you are asking for another thead lock.. or possibly worse... since you obviously didn't learn the 1st time around.... :roll:

You may be right. So please discontinue further discussion on either RA or Alfa Tau until Neal has received news from Sonalyst. We cannot hope to be taken seriously or respected if we do not respect or take other people seriously. Besides I believe we are all hoping for the best to RA and Alfa Tau.

rig ship for ultra quiet.....

:ping:

Yes, I hope the best for RA/Alfa Tau, as well. I'm always in favor of new mods and improvements to subsims. I am not a member of the Sonalysts company, so it's not my business to know their daily status. In light of DW's age, I advocated allowing RA/Alfa Tau, but of course, I have to respect their commercial decision. I do not know how mods affect their business. I trust them, if they think it will not be a problem, Sonalysts will be happy to allow it. If it costs them business with non-game customers, they may be reluctant to allow it.

thanks
Neal

Damn, it might be too late now that you have mailed them, but since SCS's main concern was the use of MODERN platforms you could have asked them if they would allow us to implement COLD WAR ones, i.e. those that no modern Navy uses like the Victor III, Alfa, Sturgeon, etc. :hmm:

At least they didn't say NO outright. Once the corporate lawyers get involved, though, I can guess what their answer will be...


(My fantasy: Sonalysts will decide to completely finish DW, update its graphics to the latest state-of-the-art, and fully support community mods, like what ThirdWire has been doing with their Strike Fighters series. Wouldn't that be nice?)

:know:

standing by for now.

Sonalysts just throw us a bone here. How about using digital distribution to distribute you know electronic content. How about an udaloy for 10$ ? You don't have to design a whole new game for that, just give us some new playables, either bundle them together and sell it, or sell them individually.
Forget retail, just use the frickkin' internet as independent developers do to distribute DLC.
You know, you could from time to time issue a patch to correct the bugs and crashes that still occur in DW, you could sell single models etc... The options are yours to make.

SCS could easily not make any statement one way or the other.

That way we would mod in our community yet their *official* customers (the US military) would still be dependent on their official releases for upgrades. IE, the US military would not be using the mods, but we as laypersons will.

Seems the ideal solution to me.

I don't think they are going to be silent. Because they responded to Neal mediation and told him that they were going to have a meeting over it.

ill believe it when i see it.

I agree with both the Subguru and goldorak here. And I have always wondered myself why Sonalysts couldn't commercialize some of those military playables and sell them to us by internet distribution. I remember Jamie Carlson saying that it sounds easier than it really is. But if they have built playable models for the military, what makes it so difficult to commercialize it and distribute thos already made playables for a fair price on the web? Never got an answer to that one. Here's hoping we get some answers from Sonalysts soon.