I've been doing some work myself. :D I asked LW if he wanted me to do this, but he hasn't gotten back to me yet so I went ahead and did it anyways....

I've been complaining, and I think LW has too, that the damage system in DW is rather senseless at times. So I've rescaled all the missiles, heavyweight torps, and ships. To do this, what I did was gather all the real-world data I could on actual missile vs. ship performance, including the Sheffield, Stark, Glamorgan, Eilat, Khaibar, Muhaviz, Dacca, Sahand, Jagvivek, Hanit, Joshan, and Sabalan. I chose to use the Stark/Exocet as the starting point for the scale because that ship was brought the closet to sinking without actually going down and because the OHP is pretty much the lynchpin for DW's current damage scale, so using it would make the least amount of waves. I then created a formula for splitting the damage done by a missile into warhead and kinetic engergy components, and scaled that effect so that the largest, fastest missiles would do about 20-30% of their damage by kinetic energy. (The Kitchen, for example, deals 274 points of KE damage, enough to damage a Perry to 55%) I also made the warhead size component subject to diminishing marginal returns, so that it is slightly more effective to hit something with two 300kg warheads than with one 600kg warhead (this simulates the effect of flooding more compartments or starting separate fires, or just simple overkill with respect to the areas effected. I.e., why MIRVs are better than one huge nuke). The main reason for doing this was to keep the high end of the scale from getting out of control; I didn't want capital ships to be so tough that "ordinary" weapons would take forever to get the job done. I also tweaked the contributions of the components so that the SM-2 would be doing at least 10% damage to the Perry, but not much more. Finally, overall damage was reduced 25% for any missile that had a high attack profile, effectively giving seaskimmers a bonus for hitting near the waterline and potentially causing flooding. Warhead effectiveness was docked 25% for using less-effective warhead type than penetrating high explosive (Styx, I'm looking at you) and was reduced 50% for anti-aircraft loads.

The final formula was: Missile Damage = [Profile factor]*{[Warhead factor]*(1.528[Warhead Weight]-.013[Warhead Weight]^1.52)+1.02297x10^-7*(.5*[Missile Mass][Missile Speed]^2)}

Torpedoes were simpler because I didn't have to worry about KE, just warhead. I used a geometric coefficient to scale warhead damage based on weight, and added a 20% bonus to certain torpedoes and mines for exploding under the hull and directing massive damage upward. I based the scale on the ADCAP being enough to take out a frigate with one hit, and that the 65-76 would be too much for most escorts and would to bring down a Supercarrier with 3 hits (about the same as the Kitchen). I couldn't make the 65cm effecitve enough with using diminishing marginal returns, so I kept the formula geometric.

So: Torpedo Damage = 1.564*[Warhead Mass]*[Homing modifier]

For ship damage capacity, I made a spreadsheet of all the ships in DW and ranked them by displacement. I highlighted those ships that we had a "data point" on or had a data point on a ship of similar displacement. I then scaled their damage capacity based on those data points and their relative displacements. Certain classes of ships I did not keep on that scale, such as AORs (powderkegs), smaller amphibs (not built to fight like the DDGs they're next to on the scale), and obviously, civilians.

I've looked over the results of the damage and capacity scaling, and I'm pleased to accept it as is without any significant amount of tweaking outside of the formulas. There were some results that seemed counter-intuitive at first, but whenever this happened it proved to be the result of my own ignorance of that weapons specifications or the failure of the forumla to account for a variable, which was promptly corrected. I'd like to hear what YOU have to say about the results though, so I'll share some of them:

Hellfire (15kg warhead): 23
Sea Skua: (28kg): 41
SM-2 (62kg): 56
Mav-F (135kg): 139
Penguin (120kg): 168
Exocet (165kg): 225
SS-N-27 (200kg): 290
Harpoon (227kg): 299
TEST-71 (205kg): 321
Styx (500kg): 345
UGST (200kg): 375
53-65K (300kg): 469
BrahMos (300kg): 515
ADCAP (239kg): 550
TASM (454kg):556
Sunburn (320kg): 562
65-73 (557kg): 871
Kitchen (1000kg): 1066

Single hit damage:
Perry (4100 tons): Exocet 45%, Sizzler 58%, 53-65K 94%, Sunburn 112%, 65-76 170%, Kitchen 210%.
Burke (8300 tons): Exocet 28%, Sizzler 36%, 53-65K 58%, Sunburn 70%, 65-76 109%, Kitchen 133%.
Tico (10000 tons): Exocet 24%, Sizzler 31%, 53-65K 49%, Sunburn 59%, 65-76 92%, Kitchen 112%.
Wasp (41000 tons): Exocet 13%, Sizzler 17%, 53-65K 28%, Sunburn 33%, 65-76 61%, Kitchen 53%.
Nimitz (97000 tons): Exocet 10%, Sizzler 13%, 53-65K 20%, Sunburn 24%, 65-76 38%, Kitchen 46%

Krivak (3900 tons): Harpoon 60%, ADCAP 110%, TASM 111%.
Sovremennyy (7900 tons): Harpoon 37%, ADCAP 69%, TASM 70%.
Slava (12500 tons): Harpoon 30%, ADCAP 55%, TASM 56%.
Kirov (26000 tons): Harpoon 20%, ADCAP 37%, TASM 37%.
Kuznetsov (68000 tons): Harpoon 15%, ADCAP 28%, TASM 28%.

***Edit: To Be has mentioned to me that the torp damages look low, especially in regards to the under-the-keel detonation that took out the River in the famous SINKEX footage from the SC into movie. Right now I've built in a 20% bonus for advanced torps that can probaby do this type of attack, which is probably low. I'm not comfortable with increasing it as part of built-in damage because it could distort other areas. So, maybe we can get LW to import the UTK feature from LW/Ami 4? Maybe??****

---------------------
I'd also like to add 2 new objects to the DB.

BrahMos Missle
Mass: 3000kg
Speed: 928 m/s
Warhead: 300kg
Range: 290 km
---Use SS-N-19 Shipwreck model---
Install on Rajput DDG in place of Styx system.

Chi Teh DDG (US Kidd Class)
[Use Tico Stats and Model. Change the following:]
State: Taiwan
Entities in Class: Chi Teh, Ming Teh, Tong Teh, Wu Teh
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...-993-specs.htm
Speed: 33 kts
Mass: 9800 tons
Launchers:
Replace Tico Launcher F with new Kidd Launcher F: 21 x SM-2, 6(?) x ASROC, 1 round guidable
Replace Tico Launcher A with new Kidd Launcher A, 41x SM-2, 2 rounds guidable
[Aft launcher has extra guidable because the SPG-60 can be used for the missiles as well as the guns, like the CAS on the FFG]
Sensors:
Replace SPY-1D with AN/SPS-48
Replace SPG-62 with SPG-60
Helos: 1 x SH-3
Sound profile: Quiet for a skimmer
The only issues are the SPY radars will still sort of be visible on the model, the CIWS placement is little off, and the Harpoons will launch from the stern instead of the superstructue. A small price to pay for the OOB update.

Would it be possible to add an alert to the kilo's for batteries?
Kapitan, our batteries are at 75%.
Kapitan, our batteries are at 50%.
Kapitan, our batteries are at 25%.

And also, how about a klub capable Russian kilo?
Even if it were the same as china, where only one hull number could carry them.

:up:

fix DSRV problem
 

RT: DSRV doesn't work properly in 1.04


Also: LWAMI have created the "2000 lb mine" which can lauch torpedo, I check it's doctrine, seem doesn't work well

will it be possible to create a new "Mobile Mine" capable launch Torpedo?

Can you be more specific about the CAPTOR? It'll be easier to troubleshoot if we know what to look for.

Good work there Molon. In regards to UTK hits its not nessarly "advanced" torpedoes that do this. The US Sub Force was so turned off to the idea from its experince in WWII (who can blame them!) that they gave up on this till the late 70's with Mk 48 and ADCAP. The obvous reason for this is that around then the Soviets begain building their really big ships like the Kirov, Moskova and Kiev. The Russians on the other hand always had to worry about USN Carrier and Battleship forces and started their Magnetic Fuse research in the late 40's and early 50's with a working weapon (53-51) in 1951.

Maybe the SM-2 should have its damaged reduces a bit more. Since its a SAM it would have a Fragmentary style warhead rather than a one that would really threaten a big ship. Infact I think we should poll everyone as to weather or not we should downgrade the FFG-7s to the SM-1MR as I've just completed the graphics for it.

As to the Kidd DDG add the Newports we sold the ROC as well! Also the Tico model would be just tempoary until someone makes Kidd class model... wait a minitue.. what you all looking at me for? :D

Finaly the Active SL on mines should be reduced to around 50 or so. Finding them on MF Active never sat right we me. If it was so easy the Samual B. Roberts and Princeton wouldn't have been hit and we wouldn't have mine hunters!

@ Reaper45: Russia dosn't have any Klub capable Kilos. Sorry.

One thing I just saw could use fixing. An AI controlled K157 launched two ASM's at twenty knots. And yes, they flew up, broke water, and headed for their target. :rotfl:

Isn't there anything you could give them? I like kilos, but the fact that they have no, ASM's, or LAM's kind of brings their appeal down, and reduces their flexibility.
As to fire on pretty much anything, you have to get within 4 1/2 miles, or the AI
will just drag your torpedoes out...

Oh and also, how about reducing the range the AI fires at?
I've found the AI to be quite useless, as an AI controlled sub will almost always fire too soon,
and the AI ship will just drag the torpedo. So if you reduced the range the AI subs fire at, they might be helpful. This is based off of marines winchester, kilo vs FFG. And as the kilo, the akula will do the same thing.

I'd be happy to increase the UTK bonus on my scale for other weapons to make them meaner. However, on a "political" note, if the RU torps go any higher you'll have single-hit kills on the OHP. Now, if they are pulling UTK detonations, I have no problem with that. But others might. Anyways, let me know what torps to apply that too. Or better yet, have LW implement his REAL UTK system from LW/Ami 4 for more than just the ADCAP.

I don't mind nerfing it on the warhead at all. As it stands now, the SM-1/2's performance exceeds the data points I have on it (5 missiles expended to sink a Combatante II). The floor would be 24 points, because that's how much kinetic energy damage it's doing. And I would be completely in favor of switching to the SM-1, but again, there are politics in that because the SM-1 can't hit a missile.

Woo hoo!!!

LWAMI added UTK for the ADCAP already? :o

Proper Tico Mk 26 loadouts should be 34 SM-2s and 10 per launcher
Tico VLS should have 61 cells each (8 TLAMs per launcher 5 ASROC the rest SAMs- SM-2/ESSM)
Kidd MK 26 loadouts 52 SM-2, 16 ASROC (26/8 per launcher)

Don't get too excitied there ML, making a Kidd model will have to wait until I at least finish the models I'm already working on. Most notably my attempt and causing DW to explode AKA the Californa class CGNs. Those bad boys got a lot of weapons and electronics!! :rock:

It's featured in LW/Ami 4, which is considered an experimental version. I think the plan was to pull back the more successful feautres into the flagship version. Also, as new features were vetted, LW/Ami 4 would eventually lead to a new mod for which the primary function was to enhance DW rather than just to get it working properly. The plan had been to call that new mod 'DW Flight II" or "Advanced capabilities modification," but as you may have noticed those proved too catchy not to use on the basic 3.xx version.

Going back to Reaper's post a few spots up, the current AI engagement ranges are based upon DW 1.03, which is why they are getting dragged out. Some tweaking is needed to bring performance in line with 1.04.

More ideas:

Mk 37 torpedoes down to 150 warhead.
Mk 44 torpedoes up to around 60 warhead so its half as effective as its sucessor the Mk 46.
A 244 torpedoes to around 50 or 60.
HARM to around 40 due to its fragmentary warhead. Its made to damage senstive radars not blow holes it stuff.


Question do AI ships, ACs etc get damaged like Player units. Does a player aircraft get their engines damaged? AA missiles most notably Sidewinder type heat seekers should be reduced since they don't nessary kill the target out right but do put them out of action or in to a plane on fire looking for a place to punch out before it blows up type of situation.


More kinds of sonobouys. A SLOT Bouy just cuz... you know mission editor stuff...
That red and white Russian DISSUB buoy
Old SQQ-2 buoys for the poor navys
SQQ-23 (Is this the DW LOFAR?)
Jezebel (LOFAR)
CODAR (DIFAR with Ambig Bearings... did a quick test and its kinda strange since each contact can only have one tracker assigned so the LOB jumps each time you mark eather contact.) Codar worked very poorly and required two pairs of percisely spaced buoys.
Julie and SSQ-110 EERs The bombing active buoys I talked about earlyer.
SSQ-86 Data Link Comm buoys. Maybe a seprate distintive ping (very short range) that indicates "you got mail". Maybe use a UWT transmission .wav I got from Bill Nicholas. Intresting potental for MP games if only we could deploy it from the P-3.
SSQ-58B Moored bouy. Would need its own docrine since it lasts for 30 days.
SSQ-101 ADAR buoys (the sonobuoy verson of the WLR on subs) would ROCK too bad it won't give any info except as a link through another platform.


Maybe give all buoys their proper numbers SSQ-Whatever (S/D). I checked and it won't show on the grams or the TACCO screen but it will show on the nav map. Or is it too much hassle for so little gain?

I was planning on giving the HARM whatever warhead nerf factor goes to the SM-2, if LW wants to apply the forumula anyways

Lightweight torpedoes are currently scaled based on sub's armor ratings; the basic principle is that every playable platform's torpedoes should be able to sink any playable sub with a single hit. LW also has it set up so that Oscars take multiple LWTs to sink, and the Typhoon can eat a single ADCAP without going down. I think the way its going to work is that the Typhoon's damage capacity will be based on the ADCAPs damage rating, other subs damage capacity will be based on the SM-2/Mav/Penguin damage, and the LWTs will be scaled based upon that and with some reference to the Typhoon as well to make sure its not ridiculously hard to bring down. (Having the UTK imported will help make all that fit together without getting nutzo, but we will probably have to deal with LWTs being overrated against skimmers to keep them effective against subs.)

I don't think they'll become any less airworthy due to damage under 100%. Before the adjustments from a prior update to aircraft vs. SAM damage scaling, Bears were surviving Sea Dart hits (60% damage IIRC) and kept going like nothing happened. I wouldn't completely rule out that some sort of system damage is simulated though, because I often see ships cease to engage incoming missiles after one or two hits us.

I really do like the idea in general of scaling weapons to acheive mission kills instead of absolute kills, at least as far as playable platforms are concerned. I'd look to scaling weapons like MANPADs to damage MPAs to about 90% instead of 100%, and similarly for some LWTs or even smaller AGMs against the larger, harder subs. In all cases, the changes would be contingent on the resulting system damage being severe enough to take the damaged platform out of the fight.

In regard to playable A/C and MANPAD hits ... you have to differentiate between the Helo and the P-3. I think a single hit with a MANPAD against a P-3 would kill at least one engine and depending on circumstances and reaction of the crew would lead to a fire in the wing with subsequent explosions and good-bye wing, thus crashing the plane. But then it might just hit the engine and everything stays alive. Reset some circuit breakers, reboot the systems and back into the fight ... after all you have 4 engines and 3 of them have generators. On top of that the WH of the MANPAD isnt that big to start with. So I'd vote that you need at least two MANPADs to bring down a P-3.

As for the Helo ... thats something different. While it has two turbines in general when a heatseeker goes for the Helo it usually goes up the exhaust and while only hitting one turbine initially the resulting explosion usually has some impact on the other turbine too or the sudden stop wrecks the gearbox. Bottom line : you can usually kiss your engines good-bye and hope for autorotation .... but there is no way of continuing the mission or even limping back home ... at least not with this chopper (its prolly different with the Attack and Spec Ops Choppers). So a Helo should go down after one MANPAD hit.

On the other hand hits from AMRAAMs or SM-2s should bring the playable A/Cs down with one shot (Warheads are bigger).

Well I tried to see what would happen with the SA-14 (N-8) turned down and the damn thing wouldn't acquire, then I tried nerfing the SA-N-4 instead and even turned down to 30 points it still brought the 60 point P-3 down in one hit. That applied when the P-3 was AI as well as player controlled. :-?

While you're on the topic of damages, something has been bothering me about this game from day one. I am a huge fan of the strike missions, nothing is more rewarding than slipping into an area, and raining TLAM's down on unsuspecting targets. :D
But From my first attempt at doing this, I've noticed the hit boxes for buildings, airfields, etc. are way too small. The weapon damages seem to be about right, but the targets are just too hard to hit. Especially the airfield, I just fired twelve TLAM's into the middle, and only a few were counted as hits, while I could clearly see ( this was a test to see just how much an airfield can take, so show truth on. ) missiles hitting a little off the exact center, and causing no damage. :down:

So would it be possible to make the hit boxes, or blast radius's larger?

:up:

Most US Ships have kevlar armor added to superstructure. So they probably should have a few HPs added above the standard for their displacement.

Spruances have Halon 1301 fire fighting system so it should get a few points added.

aluminium hulled ships like the Type 21, OHP (although the highly trained USN damaged control teams make this less of an issue on the US OHPs) should get some points deducted.


OHP has an unusual hull layout making damage more critical (if you can't get to a damage system because of the single main hull damage can be more of a problem.) On the other hand ships like the Burke DDGs and most others have a ballanced layout (corrdors on both sides of the hull mean if you have heavy damage on the port side you can go the long way using the starboard corrdor) so they should get a few points added.


Yikes those OHPs really got a lot against them! Just go to show how much the US Navy took the lessons learned by the British in the Falkands to heart. Which brings me to another point that ships crew by nations that have crews trained to a lower standard should get a few points off. A 3rd world ship manned by mostly conscripts wouldn't take as many hits to sink compared to the same ship manned by a Western or good Eastern Bloc crew because a less trained crew can't handle fires as well or is more likly to panic.

Oh and we should add a Operation Praying Mantis era Iranian Alvad FF and Kaman PTGs with their Sea Killer and Harpoon missiles. :up: They would go great with the Strait of Hormuz base map I'm working on. :rock: