SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Requests for Upcoming LWAMI Patch

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- Dangerous Waters (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=181)

- - Requests for Upcoming LWAMI Patch (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=121071)

There is going to be innaccuracy either way. IMO, it is better to base the system on factors that we can account for well and accept the error from factors that are not accounted for, than it is to deliberately introduce error by using factors that we know we can't come close to getting right.

Also, if the fuel onboard is calcuated as a function of range, any missiles that have a terminal, unpowered trajectory will still get a fuel bonus despite the fact they shouldn't have any left.

Ping...

Been deep trying to earn some scratch... anyone with any ideas about DW mods should direct their inquiries at OneShot, TLAM Strike, or Molon Labe, who all collectively are in trust of LWAMI.

Hope to be back on station soon... really. :cool:

Of course, I'm sure everyone figured that out already... thanks for keeping the lights on guys.

Cheers,
David

Possible addon/change to database:

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3332377&C=navwar

Quote:

SOYING NAVAL BASE, TAIWAN — During a Jan. 24 media event sponsored by the Taiwan Ministry of National Defense (MND) at Tsoying Naval Base, journalists got an unexpected view of the new Hsiung Feng 3 (Brave Wind) anti-ship missile. Two HF-3 missile modular canisters were outfitted on the Perry-class 1101 Cheng Kung guided missile frigate at the weapon loading dock.
The discovery was made while journalists departed Tsoying on the 1207 Wu Chang, a La Fayette-class frigate, to participate in an anti-submarine warfare (ASW) exercise.
The sighting was clearly an oversight by MND officials, who reluctantly admitted the missiles were HF-3s. Officials described the outfitting of the Cheng Kung as a yearlong test phase for the HF-3. The two HF-3s outfitted on the Cheng Kung were flanked by two HF-2 modular canisters.
Sources said the Navy was planning to equip all seven Perry-class frigates and possibly six 500-ton Jin Chiang-class guided-missile patrol vessels with HF-3s. There have been unconfirmed reports the Navy also plans to outfit its 30 170-ton stealthy Kuang Hua-6 guided-missile patrol boats now under construction. Plans for coastal batteries of HF-3s also have been reported, but unconfirmed.
With a range of 150 to 200 kilometers at Mach 2, the HF-3 will be able to hit ships along China’s coast and possibly inland targets. The distance between Taiwan and China ranges from 220 kilometers at the widest point and 130 kilometers at the narrowest.
The new missile is one in a series of HF missiles developed by the military-run Chungshan Institute of Science and Technology (CSIST).
The HF-3 was officially unveiled to the public during the 10/10 National Day Parade in October. However, actual sightings of the HF-3 outfitted on naval vessels have been elusive. The outfitting clearly demonstrates Taiwan’s determination to go forward with the HF-3 program.
There has been pressure on Taiwan from the United States to abandon development of missiles capable of hitting China’s coast. CSIST also is developing the HF-2E land attack cruise missile, reportedly with a range of more than 500 kilometers.
The U.S. State Department has been campaigning to kill the HF-2E program, but MND officials have argued Taiwan needs an effective deterrent against China’s growing arsenal of more than 1,300 short-range ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan.
The two-hour ASW exercise was designed to demonstrate the Navy’s ability to handle a blockade by Chinese submarines. The exercise included two La Fayette-class frigates, the 1206 Ti Hua and 1207 Wu Chang; the Dutch-built Hai Lung (Sea Dragon) submarine; three U.S.-built minehunters, the 1301, 1305 and 1306; two Taiwan-built Jing Chiang-class vessels, the 606 and 607; one Sikorsky S-70C ASW helicopter; and one S-2T Grumman Tracker ASW aircraft.
The exercise included depth charges dropped by Jiang-class vessels, which forced the enemy (Sea Dragon) submarine to the surface. The exercise included a demonstration landing aboard the Ti Hua by an S-70C helicopter.

I just noticed there is both a smoke "flag" in the DB and parts of the model called "exhaust." Which is responsible for those crappy white trails behind all the missiles? I was just thinking, whichever is responsible, it could be possible to use two models for many of these weapons, one with the smoke and one without. You'd use the model with the smoke during the boost phase, and use the 2-stage method spawn the smokeless model when it goes to cruise.

Maybe it's even possible to rework non-cruise missiles so that they burn up to their maximum speed until burnout and are then replaced by a smokeless, gliding model with an initial velocity but no thrust.

Another crazy idea: for "advanced" seaskimmers, would it be possible to use doctrine to create a popup attack profile? This might help get the CIWS to a level of effectiveness that isn't either 0% or 100% and could make these missiles' success in the sim a bit closer to their RL records--if it works, anyways.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Generally speaking, trying to model advanced weapon function in DW is sketchy at best. Two stage weapons are limited because there is no way to pass along the initial presets to the second stage.

Amizaur experimented extensively with popups and determined they do not make the missiles any more effective against ships, and in fact make them much more vulnerable in DW. So that one is a no go.

Cheers,
David

Any chance you could import the LWAMI 4 UTK feature into the 3 series?

Edit: I just noticed that SLMMs have no narrowband signature while intransit. I think this is an unintended consequence of the fix that prevented them from having an SL while at rest. What if the base SL was 1? Would this allow it to have a NB signature while intransit while still preventing passive detection at rest?

suggestion for future update LWAMI

I already enjoyed 3.08, but i think there still some room for improvements.

1. I think 600m turn radius for LA and SW in LWAMI 3.08 database is too big. I felt it's much better if we standarize all SSN turn radius to 500m (like Akula etc). I don't see any reason to make a bigger turn radius for LA and SW, either from technical aspect and game balance as well.

2. can you also add spanish navy and indonesia navy. Spanish navy have Agosta class subs (galema class) dan OHP class figates (santa maria class). And Indonesia navy have ex. Van-Speijk class (it's a Leander class originally built for dutch navy, after sometimes these ships sold to indonesia) and type 209 class submarine. I think because these ships and submarines had already presents in DW database, it's not very difficult to add them into new navy. I personally had already add Spanish and Indonesia navy into my LWAMI 3.08 database, nut i would like to see them included in future LWAMI update.

I would really like to see "Collision Avoidance" work for ships that are together in a formation. Nomatter how far away you put those ships, they scatter when you shoot in their direction and then they try to reform the formation again. Unfortunately they don't see each other and crash into each other a lot while trying to reform. I don't know if this is a hard coded stock issue or something that can be fixed but this issue is really hampering a campagn I'm building and I've been having to really jump through hoops to get the formations to behave properly. I would REALLY like this looked at. :D *hint hint* :D

I would really love to have the Kilo form Alfa Tau 3.1 in LwAmi. :yep:
See my last two posts in the DW screenshot thread to see why LwAmi really needs it.

On a side note, didn't Xabbarus make that?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

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