The Sim treats attack against surface ships differently than submarines, missiles, or aircraft, in the sense that it automatically deploys more than one weapon against the target using the ATTACKBEST command, usually more than enough. I'll have to look into this farther, but I have encountered the hardcap even when using the FIREBEST command.

BTW, the changes in the new version of the CIWSAttack doctrine allow a single AB DDG to survive against two Oscars until the DDG ran out of missiles, in the middle of the fourth coordinated salvo of eight missiles. :up:

I'd say that's a pretty good improvement. :know:

Cheers,
David

PS When I post the torpedo test version, it the new ciwsattack doctrine will be included.

Nice. Glad to see it's not letting missiles hit it because it was being too stingy about saving ammo.

I hate the fact that AttackBest and firebest logic has been hidden the way it has... :-? :nope:

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

Wonder what people will think of this as representative of reality or not... I'm inclined to accept it as reasonable (obviously since I brought it up) only do to the fact that why would a Aegis ship even take a chance and hold back missile launches when lives are at stake. If the ship defenses fail because the missile salvos were restricted then there really wasn't a point to hold back the quantity of missiles in the first place right...there won't be a next time to use the ammo saved.

... sounds reasonable to me. Some might not like it, because ASCM are now even *less* effective against Aegis than they already were... which some may like and some may not... but the behavior sounds reasonable, so if any quams are made then perhaps future tweaks to AEGIS performance will be made to the weapon accuracy of the SM2 itself as the ship behavior will already be a reasonable representation...

... all of course IMHO

Why be H about it?

The AEGIS is the counter-unit to the ASM. If it wasn't effective at doing its job, any the outcome of any mission involving missile shooters would be pre-determined.

On a completely unrelated note (as always)... here's more of Deathblows ever persistent, continuously annoying, yet completely unsolicited, interjections of opinion... :)

Some interesting quotes from the May issue of Seapower magazine regarding UUV development. http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/may06-14.php

So its continuing to look like the ingame UUV capabilities aren't even close to those in RL... Heck, the statements in this article are suggesting that the USN probably doesn't even have UUVs currently fielded on subs with no plans to field them until 2013.

And even then the above statements proport that intelligence, survelance and recon are the first development goals, anti-mine the 2nd development goal, and *then* after than Anti-submarine warfare.

Why this super futuristic piece of technology is sitting in the 1980-1994 representation of ASW is still baffling to me.... I would not be opposed to limited to sensor ability of UUVs to make the good for anti-mine warfare and anti-mine warfare alone... might cause a ruckus though...

... then again whose to say the Russians don't have them... :hmm:

Not to shift discussion away from the AEGIS systemps of course...

Topic: MAD sensor.
Suggestion: Limited the minimum depth detectable to the MAD.

Its my understanding that deep depths mask the magnetic anomaly detected by MAD sesnors; that is to say, a deep submarines magnetic signiture will be shielded from the surface whenever it is deep enough, thereby hiding it from MADs above.

My suggestion? Lets put a shallow depth limit to the MAD to simulate this behavior. 600 or 800 ft should do it, so that a sub in the deep can hit 1000 ft in order to hide from the P3 overhead:yep:

This was done some time ago, like six or seven months.

So it has, assuming the DB values are in feet (I hate the way the DB switches between metric and nonmetric values randomly).

Here's also something that's interesting... http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...craft/asw3.htm
Meaning the direction of the detecting aircraft affects the accuracy of the MAD sensor... wonder how true this really is... if so it would be hard to model because making the sensor cognisant of its direction as well as making the AI respond appropriately would be a real pain. Perhaps making the sensor "target aspect" sensitive would be enough of a compromise.

... can you tell I hate ASW aircraft?

Yes, distances are in meters, altitudes in feets, I hate this too ! :down:

And database and NSE altitudes in meters... :shifty:

... to the MH-60.

Last I checked, at least, the depth capability of the Orion MAD was still untouched from stock.release;

Oh, det. and op. (sensor) altitudes are in feet. ;) :know:

So now you know what my hobby-life is like. :doh:

The P-3 Mad is set not to detect contacts under 1000ft in LWAMI.

Very interesting reading here, guys. I have one minor question regarding LWAMI. Which files within LWAMI are the ones responsible for making the AI 'meaner'? Database or Doctrine files?

The way DW works, the Database and Doctrine files are integrally related. They go together as a "set".

So it is really both files working together that makes the game what it is. :)