I think we need to revisit a really old issue.

Remember back in DW 1.0-1.01, when any platform with active sonar could detect any contact within display range? That bug has been fixed, but I think we forgot to examine the DB values once the bug component of the problem was gone. As it stands now, submarine active sonar is still detecting Kilos beyond 20nm. At front aspect. And also, below the layer. Since surface active never gets below the layer I can't compare that, but FFG active can be foiled in a surface duct by staying bow-on up to about 4nm--usually good enough to take a shot that can't be dragged. Other surface active does much worse, as anyone who has played the Perisher campaign no doubt realized.

Of course I don't know what real world ranges would be for these systems, but I would guess that sub-active sonar capability is similar to surface active capability, although in terms of actual performance the sub would do slightly better because of the depth of the sensor. But that is a function of acoustic conditions, not anything that would be reflected in the database. In terms of balance, what this means is that the old exploitative tactics that we thought 1.03 got rid of are in fact still viable, which means nearly any SSN v. SSK scenario is not viable. So I propose changing the DB values for submarine active sonar to be approximately equivalent to their surface counterparts. (This could be either "Nrd" or "Detection curve." I suspect "dection curve" is the culprit because the Nrd values aren't that far ahead.)

Ping.

Argh, I've been working 55+ hours a week and doing multiple tourneys for other games that I committed to long ago... so I'm effectively out of action.

I've got the corrected helo dipping doctrine ready to go (to prevent pinging on launch and recovery of MH60) so maybe I can email that to Molon or Oneshot and they can work it into a patch release or something they have been working on.

I've got some time tomorrow so I'll be sure to set aside some time.

I've completely lost the thread of what's going on... but I think about the community here at Subsim at least every other day. :-?

Cheers,
David

@TLAM (and anyone else who knows more than your average bear about torpedoes)
Apparently LW expects us to be doing work instead of talking about doing work. So I'm going to get moving on the damage scaling I've been doing. But, I want your opinion about adjustments to the torpedo scaling.

I've redone the values based in part on your comment that the damage looked low. So what I've done instead of arbitrarily deciding that an ADCAP would sink an OHP with 50 points overkill, I've looked at the General Belgrano. That ship was hit twice by non UTK torpedoes with 353kg warheads. One of the torpedo hits was a bit of a glancing hit off the bow, so I think it's fair to say the 2nd weapon did at least 2x as much damage as the 1st. And the ship took awhile to sink, so I'm treating it as zero overkill. I'm also assuming that our damage should be based upon the 2nd weapon, because modern guided weapons probably won't just barely clip the bow but will strike in more effective areas. So, I've rescaled the damaged based on the standard that a 353kg warhead will damage a Kara DDG (the ship in DW closest to the displacement of the Belgrano) to 66%. This results in a coefficient of 1.7 (it had been 1.564).

The new key values using this coefficient are:
ADCAP: 598*
Spearfish: 510
65-73: 947
UGST: 408*
53-56K: 510
USET-80: 408-612* (200-300kg warhead)
TEST-71: 349
Moored Contact (200kg): 340
Moored Influence (200kg): 408*
* = 20% UTK bonus added.

What this translates to:
OHP: UGST 82%, 53-56K 102%, Contact mine: 68%
Burke DDG: UGST: 51%, 53-56K: 64%, Contact mine: 43%
Nimitz CVN: UGST: 18%, 53-56K: 22%, 65-76: 41%
Krivak: ADCAP: 120%
Sovremenny: ADCAP: 75%
Kirov: ADCAP: 40%
Kuznetsov: ADCAP: 30%

What I need from you is further feedback, and also, a list of what torpedoes in DW should have a UTK bonus applied.

Thanks.

My first Database edit!!!
Installed the PJ-10 BrahMos onto the Rajput (Kashin) DDG.

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/4...unchfs5.th.jpg

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/9...versbp3.th.jpg


That's about 150nm at 1800kts, folks.

Performance so far:
-2-missile salvo scores kill on FFG before FFG can finish reloading the first SM-2.
-6-missile salvo vs. Tico CG scores hit on 2nd missile for 58% damage.
-8 missile salvo vs. Tico CG and Kitty Hawk CV scores hit on Tico for 58% damage; most missile shootdowns scored by Kitty Hawk ESSM.

Aren't you going a bit overboard here with the damages to the OHP ? :roll:
What about balance in gameplay ?

If you go back a few posts you'll see a collioquoy between TLAM and I where I brought up that very point.

I think it does change the gameplay balance. I think, probably, it's an improvement rather than a step back, considering just how hard it is to get past the MH-60 to get any of those weapons on the OHP anyways. But there is a political dimension that might cause us to think twice about it.

I'd put realism over politics any day, but I don't think we can ignore the politics considering this is meant to be a widely used mod.

And speaking of realism, considering that the warhead of the 53-56K is almost equivalent to the Mk8s that sunk the Belgrano, the idea that one could sink a ship half the Belgrano's size seems right to me.

Please keep in mind that the general belgrano was sank as much because of incompetant damage control as damage from torpedoes, as far as I know.

I would expect a WWII era light crusier to be able to survive 4-6 WWII era torpedos with a properly trained crew, although I'm not sure I have any real basis for making this claim.

Cheers,
David

Done.

http://www.commanders-academy.com/fo...ad.php?t=21492

And here's the best reason I can give as to why it should be done:

http://www.commanders-academy.com/fo...7&d=1206560615
That's a replay of me in an OHP dueling a Kirov. I shoot down/chaff everything it throws at me, then use the rest of my SM-2s to damage it to about 70%. I finish it off with the Harpoons. Sad. Sad. Sad. And bogus.

Yes but the changes you're proposing would impact more directly russian subs vs ohp.
Thats why i say that such a change would give too much a free ride to subs, you MUST take into account gameplay balance.
This game is already heavily biased vs subs (do i need to remind you of the invisibile masts issue ? ), adding a one shot one kill feature is just too much. This is where the game aspect needs to be taken into account.

I think you're right that balance needs to be taken into account; I've always been a balance advocate. As it stands right now though, the FFG+MH60 has a substantial edge againt the Kilo, especially with the max-speed torpedo range reduction introduced in DW 1.04. So one-shot kills improve game balance; not harm it. And to add to the "game" balance argument, the 53-65K is hard to use against AI ships and is easy for a player controlled FFG to evade. There should be some reward for that; and, there should be a reason to use it instead of the USET/YU-8.

Good point on this one. I guess the BG's about as useful as the Sheffield then. Why does the world have to be so peaceful?--only two ships sunk by torpedoes since WWII! You wouldn't happen to know anything about the stats on the weapon that sunk the Khukri by any chance?

Without a solid data point, maybe a better way of anchoring the scale would be to just estimate how much more damaging a (contact) torpedo hit below the waterline would be compared to a cruise missile hit near the waterline. At least that way we tie it in to some real world data instead of just pulling something out of our asses.

I would expect that you're nuts.

The following is from googling "light cruiser" "torpedo" "sunk":

HMS BONAVENTURE (March 31, 1941)
British light cruiser built at Greenock, Scotland and launched in April 1939, was sunk south-east of the island of Crete by a torpedo from the Italian submarine Ambra. The cruiser was escorting Convoy GA-8 from Greece to Alexandria. The Bonaventure took 139 of her crew to the bottom. There were 310 survivors.

Light Cruiser Hermes sunk by one torpedo:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...679D946596D6CF



Rear Adm. Ainsworth's Task Force 36.1, consisted of the light cruisers USS Honolulu (CL 48), USS Helena (CL 50), and USS St. Louis (CL 49) and four destroyers, making full speed to Kula Gulf to intercept the Japanese. It met the enemy force...and USS Helena, was sunk by three torpedoes fired by the Suzukaze and Tanikaze


PHASE III. Night Action - Roughly 22:00 to 02:00 hours., June 1st.
22:04hrs
H.M.S. CASTOR and part of 11th Destroyer Flotilla in action (CASTOR'S 1st Night Action).
22:20hrs
Light cruiser action of 2nd L.C.S. (SOUTHAMPTON, DUBLIN, NOTTINGHAM, BIRMINGHAM) with Greman light cruisers. German light cruiser FRAUENLOB sunk by torpedo from SOUTHAMPTON.


ATLANTA, JUNEAU, et al were light, antiaircraft cruisers -- sixteen! 5"/127mm guns and eight 21" torpedo tubes.
Although il-suited to surface combat against heavy units, both ATLANTA and JUNEAU were desperately thrown into the First Battle of Guadalcanal. ...
JUNEAU survived a torpedo hit during the battle to be sunk by a submarine while withdrawing

During her return to Germany, that same evening, the British submarine Truant attacked Karlsruhe off Kristiansand, hitting her with one torpedo that disabled both engines and power stations. Her crew was picked up by the torpedo boat Greif which then sank the crippled cruiser with two torpedoes at 22:50 in the evening.




By these accounts, it seems that one torpedo was usually adequate for a mission kill or a sinking of a WWII light cruiser, that nearly all would fall to two--actually I didn't see any that survived two. There's two above that take three and sink; I'd say 1-2 is the "expected" need and 3 is the absolute maximum.

OK, Goldorak and others, Let me ask this question: How much damage should a torpedo do as compared to the warhead of a cruise missile of equal weight? Consider in particular the difference in flooding caused by an explosion above the waterline as compared to an explosion below the waterline, and just take a guess. I'm interested in how people come out on this.

Good question ...

Torpedo : Depending on where he xplodes (contact or under the keel) you have different effects to take into account with the under the keel detonation the more severe of the two. As far as the flooding goes that depends heavily on the location, size of the generated hole (hull thickness?) and the skill of the DC party. A well placed Mk48 or equivalent might sink an OHP with one hit (I'd say).

Cruise Missile (equivalent warhead size) : Unless you have a high sea state or the impact was really close to the waterline you wont have a lot of flooding. However unlike with a torp you will always have thermal effects of some sort or other (explosion, burning out of the rocket motor, ..). Depending on the generated heat and location the ships structure might be weakend enough so you end up having a mission or even a unit kill with one hit. Add other factors like the DC party and its up for grabs again.

Bottom line as far as I'm concerned is that the damage modell of DW is simply not detailed enough to accurately simulate all possible outcomes and thus Id say we have to live with a really simplistic version. My suggestion would be to try and come up with numbers (warhead sizes) where an OHP would sink at least 50% of the time and in most cases. Use that as zero and base all the other units on that.

Just my 2cts.

There is no variability to the damage at all. It's a simple "damage" vs. "hit points" system, so a given weapon will do the exact same amount of damage every time it hits anything. It sucks, I know.

Anyways, I'm not asking about the result of any specific weapon against any specific target. And I'm only asking about side impacts, not beneath the keel. All I'm looking for is a number, based on intuition, just to get a feel for what expectations are. An explosion slightly above the waterline as opposed to an equally powerful explosion below the waterline. 20% more? 50% more?

I'm a moron.

There is a "right" way to do this, and it's obvious. And as if it wasn't obvious enough, TLAM pretty much nudged me in that direction already... Torpedo damage scaling can be done in exactly the same way as missile damage scaling: fitting a formula to the data. Yes, the data. While only two ships have been sunk with torpedoes since WWII, the WWII data is still helpful, and there have been a number of mine hits as well. This gives us all we need. Here are the data points:

1. USS Samuel Roberts
Hit by Iranian M-08 contact mine. (115kg charge)
Description of damage:
http://www.navybook.com/nohigherhono...g58damage1.jpg

Although this is a contact mine, it struck near the keel, so for our purposes this is considered an under-the-keel impact instead of a side impact. The severity of the damage looks to be about 90-95%+.

2. USS Tripoli
Hit by Iraqi LUGM-145 floating contact mine (200kg charge)
Description of effects:
http://www.navybuddies.com/lph/lph10mine1.jpg
http://www.navybuddies.com/lph/lph10mine2.jpg

There is some discrepancy about the size of the hole, but the larger estimate is from Wiki so I consider the smaller estimate more reliable (and more reasonable looking at the photos). This figure puts the size of the hole just slightly larger than that caused by the much smaller mine that hit the Roberts, which gives us a good estimate of the difference between a side impact and UTK impact. The last account suggests that the Tripoli got a little lucky; if there had been a fire the damage would have been much worse. So, this example probably understates the damage because fire damage is NOT included. I'd put the actual DW damage around 25%-40%, with an expectation of 33%-50% for a "normal" hit.

3. General Belgrano
Hit by two MkVIII torpedoes (353kg charge)
Description of effects:
It's hard to draw much of a conclusion from this ship because the damage seemed so flukey. One torpedo apparently barely hurt. The other was as bad as it could have been. Damage control could have been better...but then again, without working pumps and with at least 3 compartments flooded, would it have mattered?

4. WWII Data (See previous post)
The net is full of examples of light cruisers hit by torpedoes in WWII. As indicated above, at least some light cruisers in WWII had armor and a 'buldge' to make them more survivable against torpedoes. Nevertheless, it seems most CLs hit by a single torpedo were lost. I can't find any examples of CLs that survived two. WWII torpedoes varied in size, but 250-400kg appears typical. They are, on average, larger than modern torpedoes--probably to counter anti-torpedo design features like the that of the Belgrano/Phoenix.



This is enough data to create a damage-per-kg curve. The basic formula is Damage = [A(Warhead)-B(DMR)]*C, where A and B are coefficients and C is the UTK factor. (DMR=Diminishing Marginal Return. It brings down the larger warheads a bit, so 2x warhead size gives you something less than 2x damage). What I'm going to do is adjust A, B, and C until the results fits the data above.

Specifically, I'm looking for these target values:
1. a UTK impact from a 115kg warhead to damage an OHP to 90%.

2. A side impact from a 200kg warhead to damage an Iwo Jima (between the size of a Harper's Ferry and Invincible) to about 40%. It should be slightly higher than the damage for a 115kg UTK detonation.

3. A side impact from a 353kg warhead to cause incapacitating damage (60-80%) to a 12,000 ton ship (about the size of a Slava). A second impact will finish it off.


Once values are fitted to this data, the resulting curve will be applied to all torpedoes. If you have a reason why these targets should not be used, speak now, or forever hold your peace.

I know this is kind of off topic to what is currently being discussed, but can you take a look at the Ticonderoga's sensors (mainly the sonar arrays)? I find it incredibly irritating that it can detect, track, and classify targets over 50nm away in just about any acustic conditions.

An example of this is in Molon Labe's "Rough Riders" mission, where a Tico in the CSG detected a biological around 45-50nm away within about 10 seconds of the mission start.

Another example is in the Operation Rough Seas campaign (mission 1). The Ticos instantly detected every submerged contact up to 40nm away.

This was all happening while the Tico is typically moving at 15-20kts. There were no convergence zones (ranges were varied between point-blank and ~50nm out) either. Now I don't know about you, but it seems pretty stupid to have any surface ship travelling at 20kts to detect every submerged contact within a huge radius of it, let alone track the contacts movements AND classify them.

Thanks,
-ASWnut

Are you asking us to turn down the SL of biologics?

I think he's talking about the Ticos sonar in general. I never noticed things like this, but i haven't played these missions yet. Maybe a normal check if the sensor ranges are correct or if the AI behaviour with it is correct (classification and TMA).

Biologics do have quite a high SL, but whales are louder than subs of course...at least i think so.

Phil

Well, I made RR and I've (tried) to play ORS1. The formation in the up to date versions of RR travel at 15 knots, in older pre-active sonar bug versions they move at 25 knots and drift on occasion. The formation in ORS1 moves at 10 knots. Ticos in RR detecting distant biologics doesn't send up any red flags to me because the sonars are not washed out and bios are frakin loud. Ticos in ORS1 detecting submarines doesn't send up red flags because the sonars are not washed out and the submarines start out within 15nm of the formation (or sometimes literally inside it), they tend to be older, loud submarines (Song, Han), and they often start on the surface (no, I'm not kidding).

All US ASW surface combattants are given the AI surfpass WS1 towed array sensor entity series (that probably stands for Western Sonar, quality 1). The database value for total washout for the shallowest sensor entity is 25, which is equal to the playable FFG TA and should indicate washout beginning to set in above 15 knots. Deeper TA entities wash out at lower speeds. The sensitivity of the sensor entities are -13, which is one notch lower than that of an AI 688I.

Hm. Odd. It just seems to me that it all hapens too fast. The Tico detects, tracks, and classifys any target nearly instantly. In situations where my FFG would only have like one or two tonal lines max, the tico apparently gets all of them, and uses it's magic TMA to get an instant solution. It's just kind of annoying to me. :dead:

P.S. Where did you get those pics of the Samuel B. Roberts from? Was there any more of them?

According to the readme, AI contacts are not reported until they are classified, and bearing only contacts are never reported either. The solution will take time to firm up and be accurate in most cases, but for the most part detection/tracking/classification are all done instantly.

Poke around at nohigherhonor.com for more Roberts pics.
http://navybook.com/nohigherhonor/pic-ffg58damage.shtml

Here's another good one:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rts_damage.jpg